Abstract

The paper analyses drafts of penal codes (1920-1932) which reference to theft crime. The drafts have desisted casuistry, which had occurred in previous regulation. This contribution presents dogmatic issues related to the feature “consent of authorized person (owner, holder)”. The author criticizes distinction of this feature in regulation because
it contains in term “taken someone else`s movable property”. The paper sees controversial issues of “lawlessness of taken someone else`s movable property” and “lawlessness of purpose of appropriation”,  which means intention of taking someone else`s movable property in order to treat an object of crime like own. The author criticizes distinction of this feature in drafts of penal codes because prerequisite of lawlessness is display in description of crime in another situations. The feature “lawlessness of appropriation” has been in theft crime in StGB since 1871 and it was also in some of polish penal codes drafts (1920-1932). The paper analyses aggravated and mitigated circumstances of theft. The author underlines wide scope of regulation of theft in legislations until beginning of XIX century, which patterned oneself on Roman law. The fraud, theft (in current meaning) and appropriation crimes have been distincted step by step in XIX century. It caused necessity to create new features.