Los Angeles Grand Theft Defense Attorney Discusses Charges and Defense | CBS Law скачать в хорошем качестве

Los Angeles Grand Theft Defense Attorney Discusses Charges and Defense | CBS Law

Los Angeles grand theft attorney Chris Bou Saeed explains California theft laws, including grand theft (PC 487), joyriding (VC 10851), and receiving stolen property. Learn what the prosecution must prove, the potential penalties, and common defenses such as lack of intent, claim of right, or absence of knowledge. At CBS Law, we use investigators, witness interviews, and forensic evidence to challenge theft allegations and protect your rights. 👉 If you’re facing theft charges in Los Angeles, call CBS Law today at (213) 800-8005 for a free consultation. CBS Law 633 W. 5th Street, 26th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 (213) 800-8005 https://thecbslaw.com/ Transcript: Hi, I'm Chris Bou Saeed, Los Angeles grand theft attorney. Welcome to CBS Law, where we deliver results, not promises. Let's talk about theft cases, specifically grand theft cases, or cases that involve the stealing of property with a value of $950 or greater. Let's talk about some of the more common charges that we see. First, grand theft itself. That's a violation of Penal Code section 487. That's a felony. That could that means upon conviction, the potential consequences are a low term of 16 months, a middle term of 2 years, or a high term of three years. All servable at halftime, which means the most you would actually serve of the judge's sentence would be half of the amount of time. What constitutes a violation of grand theft? Well, first that someone took property not their own with the intent to deprive the owner of that property. And third, that the value of the property exceeded $950. Some of the common defenses that we employ for clients charged with grand theft, first and foremost, center around the lack of intent to deprive the owner of the property. The way we effectuate that defense is we utilize investigators to not only interview witnesses but also understand the surrounding circumstances that had to do with the taking of the property. Often times intent to deprive the owner of is relied upon by the prosecution through circumstantial evidence. In other words, it's generally uncommon when someone takes a piece of property that they look at the owner or they look at the surveillance video and say, "I intend to deprive the true owner thereof." And so what the prosecution will do is look at the circumstances surrounding the taking of property to infer that the person accused intended to take it without paying for it. We often see in these cases that the allegations of theft relate to circumstances where there's a familial dispute between two spouses, child custody involved, mental health issues, drug or alcohol abuse, or simply mistakes. We also utilize our investigators to obtain not only statements, but forensic evidence related to the alleged theft. and that would involve surveillance videos, for example. Another common defense related to the lack of criminal intent would be if a client is taking property that they actually and reasonably believe that they have a claim of right or claim of ownership over. So, they weren't intending to deprive the true owner of the property. Rather, they were just trying to regain their property. Second is a crime commonly called joying. It involves the theft of automobiles. That's a violation of vehicle code section 10851. That crime can be charged as a felony or as a misdemeanor. If it's charged as a felony, the possible consequences upon conviction include a low term of 16 months in state prison, a middle term of two years in state prison, or a high term of three years in state prison. all servable at halftime, which means the most one could serve is 50% of the time sentenced. Common defenses for violations of joy riding that we utilize include using investigators to interview witnesses, gather statements, understand the surrounding circumstances regarding the alleged theft of the vehicle. Oftentimes, these cases involve family disputes, domestic disputes, mental health issues, drug or substance abuse that actually undermine the idea that the client had actually intended to deprive the owner of the vehicle and rather they had a claim of right over the vehicle or permission to take the vehicle or they were just unable due to their particular circumstance to form the intent to actually steal the property at hand. Third is receiving stolen property. That is also a crime that can be charged as a felony or as a misdemeanor. What constitutes receiving stolen property? Well, one, possession of property that was stolen, but second, critically, that the person accused of receiving stolen property knew that the property had been stolen. Common defenses related to receiving stolen property center around that knowledge element. In other words, that the client did not have actual knowledge that the property was stolen. Often times the prosecution is going to utilize circumstantial evidence to try to argue that the client had the intent or knowledge that the property was stolen. What we do at CBS...truncated