Jack was a manager at a shoe industry called ” Jack and Laces ”, but he lost his position, and over the Christmas, he had no finances to buy presents for his children, and he found it right for him to break through the shop and steal cash and shoes for his children. When Jack was the manager, he had duplicated the key to the shop, and because he had returned the key he was given, then he could not be a suspect of theft. The company had rules that governed it to make sure there were peace and harmony. Rule number 232 stated about a robbery committed by a person who steals another person’s property that is above $950 (Suharsono et al., 54).
Jack committed theft crime by stealing cash from the safe amounting to $1000, and three pairs of shoes were worthy $ 600; this totals $ 1600, which was worth the punishment for the Greenacre penal (Emiri et al., 31). Jack committed an assault since he intended to steal from the shop, and this could endanger the life of the next manager since he will be answerable for the loss of the cash and the shoes since he was the only person who had the key to the shop and the safe. What jack did was an act that could cause fear together with harm to the current manager. The next manager might be charged with theft, which could force him to pay for the lost cash and shoes. He may also lose his position as a leader because of mistrust from stalk holders, and they might be taken to court to be charged according to the laws.
There was fraudulence where Jack committed a crime of stealing from the company. He comfortably went to the company at 10 pm, and this is because he was the manager, and people around the shop could not know he was stealing because they might not have known that he was no longer the manager. He committed a crime of embezzling of the properties, by taking from the company. It was against the law for jack to steal from the company, and this means that he had a plan of stealing from the company, and this is the reason he duplicated the key.
Jack had the intention of stealing from the company, and also he might have had a plan to cause harm to the manager of the company since he was the one who could be answerable to the stalk holders for the lost properties. Since he was no longer involved in any of the deals in the company, he could not be a suspect. With the current technology that uses machines that can detect the fingerprints to detect the thief, it will be easier for the company to identify the person who broke into the shop since he had touched other properties in the store that left the fingerprint marks. It could be wise for the company before judging the current manager of the person who might have had the key to the shop, and they could call the CID to the scene before they contaminated the evidence, and jack could be caught and be charged with the crime he committed.
In conclusion, it was wrong for jack to steal from the shop since he knew his actions could cost other people. It could cause fear, the suspect might be forced to pay, or they may lose their job position because of his gain.
Emiri, Oghenemaro Festus, Ayuba Giwa, and Jonathan Ehusani. “Revisiting the Traditional IRAC Organisational Structure for Legal Analysis: Towards a Multidisciplinary Approach.” Nigerian LJ 20 (2017): 31.
Suharsono, Agus, and Burhanuddin Harahap. “The Development of Tax Law Application Formula in Indonesia from IRAC into IREAC.” SHS Web of Conferences. Vol. 54. EDP Sciences, 2018.