theft
noun · Diebstahl
Diebstahl for theft, § 242 StGB, but the German offence turns on Wegnahme, breaking someone’s possession and taking the thing away, which the broad English appropriation does not require. Where the offender already held the property lawfully and then kept or sold it, English law still calls it theft but German law calls it Unterschlagung, § 246 StGB, so the reflex Diebstahl points at the wrong offence for anything not physically taken.
Which translation, when
Why
English theft rests on appropriation, any assumption of an owner’s rights, and German Diebstahl rests on Wegnahme, a physical break in possession, and the gap between the two decides which offence applies. Under § 242 StGB Diebstahl needs a fremde bewegliche Sache taken by Wegnahme, the offender breaking the holder’s Gewahrsam and establishing his own, with Zueignungsabsicht, the intent to appropriate. Where there is no Wegnahme, because the offender already held the thing lawfully, as a borrower, a finder, an employee entrusted with it, and then keeps or disposes of it, German law reaches for Unterschlagung, § 246 StGB, heavier as veruntreuende Unterschlagung where the thing was entrusted. English theft draws no such line, its appropriation covers keeping and selling as readily as taking, so a single English theft charge can correspond to Diebstahl or Unterschlagung depending on how the property came into the offender’s hands. So Diebstahl is theft only where something was taken, and translating every theft as Diebstahl mislabels the embezzlement-type case that German law tries under a different section.
Typical mistakes
- Diebstahl needs Wegnahme, § 242 StGB, a break in another’s possession, so keeping or selling property one already lawfully holds is Unterschlagung, § 246 StGB, not Diebstahl.
- The heavier veruntreuende Unterschlagung applies where the thing was entrusted to the offender, § 246 StGB, a distinction the single English theft does not draw.
- German theft covers only a fremde bewegliche Sache, a movable corporeal thing, so land, rights and data are outside § 242 and reached, if at all, by other offences.
What matters
Property-offence matters turn on how the thing was taken: Diebstahl under § 242 StGB needs Wegnahme, a break in possession, while keeping property already lawfully held is Unterschlagung, § 246 StGB. The charge translating an employee’s misuse of entrusted goods as Diebstahl has picked the wrong section, the absent Wegnahme sending it to § 246 instead.
What the machine misses
Theft comes back as Diebstahl in machine output whatever the facts, and the German offence hides a requirement the English word lacks, § 242 StGB needs Wegnahme, a physical break in another’s possession, so property the offender already held and merely kept is not Diebstahl at all but Unterschlagung, § 246 StGB. A translated theft charge therefore reads as Diebstahl even in the embezzlement case German law tries under a different section, and the veruntreuende form that raises the penalty for entrusted goods is lost with it.
Examples
| to commit theft | einen Diebstahl begehen |
| theft of a movable thing | der Diebstahl einer beweglichen Sache |
| aggravated theft | der besonders schwere Fall des Diebstahls |
| theft by an employee | die Unterschlagung durch einen Angestellten |