To be guilty of criminal possession of stolen property under the penal code 165.40 through to-54 of the New York City, one must be engaged in the act of taking possession of something that does not belong to him with an intention of accruing benefit from it, or denying the rightful owner of the benefit.

The mere possession of any criminal property is in itself actionable parse and is a crime in all statutes and punishable by imprisonment of up to 25 years, depending on the degree of the offense.

In most cases, the act regarded as larceny, which involves stealing and possession are usually actionable at the same time with serious repercussions to the offender. The application of the law on the criminal possession of stolen property mandates the district attorney of the state to institute charges of larceny as well as possession with the determination depending on the value of the property at the time when the offender was arrested. It is for this reason that the law in general classifies the criminal possession of stolen property in 5 degrees, all being classified as different degrees of the same kind of felony.

Under the New York penal code 165, the commission of an act of criminal possession of stolen property is a serious crime whose determination is dependent solely on the degree at which the value of the good in question. In most cases, those who commit criminal possession for the first time or whose possession are of lighter value are usually given lighter sentences which may be up to 3 years in prison. However, if the value of the good in possession is more, the period may extend in some cases to a determinate sentence of 8 years or a maximum of 25 years jail term.

  1. First degree criminal possession cases are where possession or larceny is involving a property worth $ 1,000,000 and above. The first degree cases of criminal possession in New York may in most cases attract a penalty of up to 25 years in prison.
  2. Second degree offences are those where the defendant knowingly had illegal possession of a property worth $50, 0000, it attracts 15 years’ incarceration. Third degree offences on their part are those which exceed a net worth of $3000 at the time of arrest and is a felony attracting up to 7 years.
  3. Fourth degree criminal possession of property charges involve property exceeding $1,000 and may attract incarceration for up to 4 years. The same applies to the fifth degree criminal possession charges which in most cases attract 1 year in prison.

New York legal system allows for parole in the case of determinate sentences. Determinate sentences allow the officials at the correction center where one is committed to decide the time for his release, where in some cases one may be given the leniency of parole.

Criminal possession of stolen property is in itself a felony which attracts serious legal ramifications. Most cases tried under the federal system include all cases of larceny and possession of the stolen goods, where the district attorney is mandated to decide at his own discretion whether to combine the two or not. Under the penal code, the mere possession of someone’s good is an affront on his enjoyment of the same and so is actionable with serious results. In the New York penal code, the introduction of parole allows for first time light offenders to come back to the society faster through the power of parole. That is not applicable to first degree criminal possession and larceny cases where the individuals may serve as long as over the stipulated 25 years in prison.

Some related crimes may include; trespass to land, property invasion, forgery, possession of unlicensed firearms, selling illegal goods which have not passed through customs, theft through proxies, impersonation, fraud or planning to do so, robbery, burglary, shoplifting and possession of forged licenses and certifications.

As a felony, the commission of criminal possession of stolen property is an offence and is charged according to the laid down penal codes 165 in the New York justice system. Larceny on its part may be included by the district attorney at his discretion and so the crime is in most cases charged two fold, unless the “thief” is identified. Depending on the degree of the office, the crime can attract longer incarcerations for something above 25 years. Because the crime of larceny and criminal possession is charged for even the smallest value, having legal education on your legal rights, the underlying precedence and how the law applies in that case may help so much. The offender additionally needs better legal representation in court.

Some possible defenses any defendant in criminal possession of stolen property may use include; he acted in good faith, right of ownership, action was done when not in the right frame of mind, juvenile considerations for those not of legal age, rescission or merely returning the property before the charges, inducement into committing the crime by others with ill intent and plea deal.

Joseph Burger (respondent) vs. The New York state In an appeal case at the United States Supreme Court involving a junkyard business owner-Joseph Burger, who was in the business of selling automobile parts and the New York state inspection department on the issue of illegal stolen property he possessed, discovered at inspection of the premises. When the inspectors went to check his records including licenses, there was none, so the inspectors proceeded with the overall inspection which ended with the discovery of stolen vehicle parts.

The inspection however, had no legal search warrant as required by law. The owner was charged with possession of stolen property and use of unregistered business, the respondent further challenged the constitutionality of the inspection and moved to the appeals court, from the lower court, where he had been found guilty. In his judgment Justice Bluckman of the Supreme Court held that the fact that the prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures had been violated by the officers conducting the search without a search warrant did not mean that their action was illegal. It was held that the officers were within their rights in upholding the regulatory frameworks; the case was remanded back to the New York court and allowed to proceed back to the criminal possession of stolen property.