Actually that is not quite right. Some crimes require both "mens rea" (intent) and "actus rea" (action) but some require just "actus rea". For instance, murde

Actually that is not quite right. Some crimes require both "mens rea" (intent) and "actus rea" (action) but some require just "actus rea". For instance, murder requires both intent and action but manslaughter only requires action. Which leads to the canonical law school example of a hit man who shoots his victim with the intent to kill him but the victim does not die. Mistakenly thinking the victim is dead, the hitman leaves the body in a deserted spot in the woods whereupon the victim finally dies of exposure. The hitman technically did not commit murder because when he shot the victim, he intended to kill him but did not actually succeed. However, when he did finally kill the victim (by leaving him out to die of exposure), he had no intention of killing the victim (because the hitman thought the victim was already dead). Of course, this is all theoretical and if you did try to pull off a crime by manipulating mens and actus rea, you would find prosecutors very creative in finding ways to throw the book at you.