>Nothing dishonest about it. Plus using the logic of your argument the shop owner is also violating that 1968 law. So arrest them both? Or was the shop owner no

>Nothing dishonest about it. Plus using the logic of your argument the shop owner is also violating that 1968 law. So arrest them both? Or was the shop owner not "dishonest" enough but the person who originally purchased the property and wanted it returned "dishonest?" You evidently missed the bit where I explored the definition of dishonest. For clarity, I'll expand here. If I go into a shop, and pose as a customer, but then run out with it in my hand without paying, then, by a colloquial definition of dishonesty, I will have "dishonestly appropriated" it. However the Act specifically defines "dishonestly" in section 2 (the relevant line is 2(1) which I erroneously wrote as 3(1). See my comment above - "So, if the owner believes that they have a right to take it, then they can't be guilty of Theft.") > Seems like you're using a double standard here. In what way? For a start, I've made no assertions about the criminality or innocence of the pawnbroker. The pawnbroker may be guilty of Handling Stolen Goods, but is more likely to fall under the good faith statement in 3(2). All I've stated is that the original owner is not guilty of an offence (unless by some odd mental quirk, they took it without believing that they had a right to do so). > All the appropriation clause indicates is that if someone purchases property in good faith they effectively aren't a thief under the law The first clause in the section describes what is appropriation (i.e. assuming the rights of owner). The second clause is the good-faith exception you describe. > Simply bringing up the appropriations clause doesn't prove (or disprove) that the original owner would be considered a thief since you're misusing the law anyway. Yes, that's why, after bringing up the appropriations section, I brought up the dishonestly section, to show that the only situation in which the original owner could be a thief is if they took it without believing they had a right to do so, which would be very odd behaviour. It's also why I went on to explore the other two offences, of which the original owner could not be guilty either. >Doesn't apply. You cannot shoplift your own goods. Just like the hat or coat you had on when you entered the store isn't "shoplifted" when you left the store wearing it. Yes, that's what I said. '... and requires an offence under 1(1) of the Theft Act.' In order to be considered shoplifting, it must be a theft. Since it isn't a theft, then it isn't shoplifting. I brought it up to point out that even though there's another act that might cover this, but doesn't, because it refers to the Theft Act for a definition, which we have already shown, does not apply.