Instructions to Jury in case of Grand Theft:
Below is a modified version of the California Judicial Council’s jury instruction describing what the prosecution would have to prove in order to convict someone of theft:
To prove that the defendant is guilty of theft, the People must prove that:
1. The defendant took possession of property owned by someone else;
2. The defendant did this without the owner’s consent;
3. When the defendant took the property he intended to deprive the owner of it permanently to remove it from the owner’s possession for so long a period of time that the owner would lose a major portion of the value or enjoyment of it;
4. The defendant moved the property, even a small distance, and kept it for any period of time, however brief.
California Penal Code 487
487. Grand theft is theft committed in any of the following cases:
(a) When the money, labor, or real or personal property taken is
of a value exceeding four hundred dollars ($400), except as provided
in subdivision (b).
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), grand theft is committed in
any of the following cases:
(3) Where the money, labor, or real or personal property is taken
by a servant, agent, or employee from his or her principal or
employer and aggregates four hundred dollars ($400) or more in any 12
consecutive month period.
(e) This section shall become operative on January 1, 1997.
Here is what occured when we went to Beverly Hills Police Department to file complaint:
Below is a link to an actual withdrawal slip that was handed in as evidence that The Beverly Hills Police, Los Angeles County Sheriffs, and District Attorney’s office said wasn’t enough and they would not even consider the case. According to the rules set forth by jury instruction and California Penal Code 487 this meets those requirements at the very least why wouldn’t the local law enforcement investigate?
I sat in a meeting with a detective of the Beverly Hills Police Department and Georges Marciano this month and discussed this very item as Georges Marciano was advised the case was too big and we needed to simplify it….Ok, so we did…we provided the evidence below along with statute of limitations which since it wasn’t discovered until December 2006 meets the requirement by a year, we gave the penal code that was violated “CPC 487 Grand Theft”, we provided the evidence along with the owner/witness that it was not authorized.
We were then told we would have to do more of an investigation…
We would have to supply evidence from inception of the money deposited in the account, evidence of original documents from the bank, witnesses to the event, where the money went after it left the bank and what the intention was to do with the money.
I asked if we come up with beginning to the end of this crime a full investigation then what do we need the Beverly Hills Police for?
Obviously that was met with …well let’s just say the Detective was not happy with me.
This can happen to anyone, it is not about the amounts stolen here, remember in this economic time every bit counts not just for you but for the economy. This money would have in the owners hands(not the criminals) meant tax dollars which go to helping people keep their employment, it means dollars that could purchase retail, food all helping to keep Californians employed.
This evidence exhibit listed below in the link is one of hundreds of pieces of evidence collected by Georges Marciano.
The withdrawal slip is for well over the $400.00 dollar amount requirement, it is signed by Miriam Choi not the owner of the account, the account owner is Georges Marciano, Georges Marciano has not authorized this to be withdrawn.