John Smith, the defendant in this case, was accused of stealing money from his employer. The claims made against him were that he had taken funds without permission and had used them for his own benefit.
Describe sentences for clause analysis
The prosecution argued that John had acted with intent to defraud his employer. They also stated that there was sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that John had indeed committed the theft.
In response to these accusations, John’s defence team argued that he could not be guilty of theft as he had no intention of permanently depriving his employer of the money at any point in time. Instead, they claimed that the sum taken by John was done so for legitimate business purposes and would eventually be repaid in full with interest due on it.
This brings us to the clause analysis portion of our judgement:
1) In order for John to be found guilty under criminal law, it must be established beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly took money without permission and intended to permanently deprive his employer of those funds;
2) The prosecution must provide sufficient evidence showing intentional fraud or deception on behalf of John;
3) The defence must establish convincingly through means other than mere assertion or speculation that the amount taken by John was done so with an intention to repay said sum along with interest due upon doing so;
4) If either party fails to satisfy either requirement then a finding cannot reasonably be made as per criminal law standards.