They are tangible material elements that occur through embezzlement and seizure of the “movable” thing without the consent of its owner or possessor.
In essence, theft is embezzlement, and embezzlement is an assault on the possession of a movable by illegally transferring this possession into the possession of the person accused of theft (a transfer that is not coupled with the consent of the victim) (proven in cassation) the act of the perpetrator assaulting the victim’s possession of the money and snatching it, taking it, or seizing it by bringing it into his full possession. Divorced without the consent of the possessor) The crime of theft of electricity The element of embezzlement may be represented by the thief extending a “wire” to supply him with electricity directly from the cover and without passing through the meter. It may also be represented by causing a defect in the meter so that it does not record the actual or real consumption or other forms.
It may also include the accused using a remote communication device without extending wires. Especially in light of the modern communication revolution.

The employee or worker’s possession of the movables and production requirements under his control or delivered to him is an accidental possession. The embezzlement that occurs in this case is a crime of theft.
To prove that the victim handed over to the accused the item allegedly stolen
The surrender must be voluntary, conscious and conscious, and convey full or incomplete possession.

The delivery of the movable property – the subject of the crime – must have been issued by a person who has authority over the movable thing. Delivery is not taken into account unless it was issued with knowledge, awareness and consent. Delivery is not taken into account as a reason to deny the incident of embezzlement – theft – unless it was issued by a person who has authority over the thing. The Muslim or the stolen property, and those who have the right to move property are one of two people: the owner of the thing or its possessor. A servant in a house is not the owner of what is in it, but rather is merely an accidental possessor of what is in it, and the intention of the embezzler to take revenge on the owner is also considered theft.

If the person accused of theft received the debt instrument or the trust receipt to present it to someone to read it and then return it immediately and he denies it after receiving it in the same council, then he is considered a thief because the delivery to him is not a delivery transferring possession. Rather, it is merely a physical delivery that does not have any meaning of abandonment. Debt repayment
When another type of embezzlement is proven, which is the crime of trespassing on intangible things such as ideas and opinions, the judiciary orders financial compensation commensurate with their moral, moral, intellectual and material value as well.

The theft of real estate is fixed by nature and cannot be moved from one place to another. Therefore, according to the prevailing legal concept, it is not conceivable to say that theft of real estate is stolen. However, that does not prevent the statement that the laws protect ownership of the real estate with punitive provisions in this regard.
There is another type of theft, such as agricultural machinery, tree fruits, agricultural crops, or doors… Because it can be dispossessed, seized, and transferred from one place to another.
Types of transfers:
(solids, liquids, gases)
Solid, liquid, and gaseous objects are all movables that are valid for possession, ownership, and transportation. Therefore, they are suitable for being the subject of the crime of theft, as well as the theft of internationally prohibited items once they are seized, such as: radioactive materials (uranium, red mercury, or weapons).
The fact of theft is not proven in such matters: the theft of air or sunlight is a product of the divine nature
Here also, there is no crime of theft in cases of purchase, ownership, and transfer of ownership through legal and legitimate inheritance
Likewise, a person does not have the right to seize what is owned by another person, considering it a “right to redeem.”
In the event of misappropriation of items seized judicially or administratively, it is considered theft, even if it was committed by its owner
Also, the embezzlement of mortgaged items and the embezzlement of bonds whose owner had previously received them to the court
Ownership is shared and disposed of individually
Such as more than one person owning a motorcycle, and each of them is a joint owner. Joint ownership does not permit one of the owners to seize the movable property in order to establish ownership at the same time by others. Therefore, he is considered a thief if he embezzles a jointly owned movable property while he is one of its joint owners.
Whoever puts his hand on movable property that has no owner with the intention of owning it, he owns it, and the movable property becomes ownerless if its owner abandons it or leaves it with the intention of relinquishing his ownership and the lost items as well if there is no criminal intent in them.
Buried treasure: hidden treasure
The treasure buried in the property belongs to the owner of the property in which the treasure was found, and then to his heirs after him. Here, the legislator does not mean allowing the seizure of antiquities at all, and whoever finds them must disclose them and inform the competent bodies.
Reported by: Souad Saeed