Definition
In Roman and civil law, a specific classification of theft (*furtum*). A theft was designated *conceptum* when stolen goods were searched for and discovered upon a person in the presence of witnesses. The presence of witnesses at the discovery was the defining feature: it transformed what might otherwise be a simple or manifest theft into this named category, triggering its own procedural consequences, including a distinct form of action (*actio concepti*) against the possessor of the stolen thing, even if that person was not the original thief.
The term derives from the Latin *concipere* (to take or receive), reflecting the act of the stolen item being received or found within a person's possession.
---
Common Confusion
*Conceptum* is one of several named Roman law categories of theft that researchers encounter in civil law sources. The full taxonomy includes *furtum manifestum* (theft caught in the act), *furtum nec manifestum* (theft not caught in the act), *furtum conceptum* (theft discovered on a person through a formal search with witnesses), and *furtum oblatum* (stolen goods passed off to another). These categories are frequently compressed or conflated in English-language secondary sources. *Conceptum* differs from *manifestum* in that the thief need not be caught in the act of stealing; the classification turns on the formal witnessed discovery during a search, not on apprehension at the moment of taking. Researchers using sources that discuss Roman theft without clearly distinguishing these categories should treat the classification with caution.
---
Why It Matters in Research
*Conceptum* is primarily a historical civil law term with no direct modern common-law counterpart. Researchers will encounter it almost exclusively in three contexts: (1) treatises and commentaries on Roman law and the *Institutes* of Justinian, (2) early civil law scholarship absorbed into Louisiana, Scottish, or South African legal traditions, and (3) comparative law discussions of theft's historical taxonomy.
The critical navigational point is that this term does not travel into modern criminal law. A researcher working in common-law jurisdictions will not find *conceptum* operative in case law or statute. Its relevance is doctrinal and historical — useful for understanding how Roman law distinguished gradations of theft and imposed differentiated remedies, but not a live category in Anglo-American courts.
Burrill's note on *actio concepti* is worth pursuing: the action lay against the possessor of stolen goods discovered through the formal search, regardless of whether that possessor was the thief. This anticipates modern debates about receipt of stolen property and possessor liability, and researchers doing comparative work on those doctrines may find the Roman framework useful background.
The *Institutes* citation given by all four dictionaries — rendered variously as Inst. 3.1.4 or 4.1.4 — refers to Justinian's *Institutiones*, Book 4, Title 1, which addresses the law of theft (*de obligationibus quae ex delicto nascuntur*). Researchers should verify the book and title reference against a primary text, as the dictionary sources show minor inconsistency in citation.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
All four source dictionaries are in close agreement on substance: *conceptum* denotes a theft classified by the formal, witnessed discovery of stolen goods on a person's person during a search. Black's (both editions), Rapalje & Lawrence, and Burrill's all anchor the definition to the same passage in the *Institutes*.
Burrill's is the most expansive, noting the *actio concepti* — the procedural remedy attached to this classification — and flagging that the action ran against the possessor even if not the thief. This is the most substantively useful addition across the dictionary sources and is absent or understated in the others.
None of the four dictionaries contextualizes *conceptum* within the full taxonomy of Roman theft classifications, which limits their utility for researchers who need to distinguish it from adjacent categories. Burrill's comes closest to a comparative treatment but still does not fully develop the contrast with *furtum manifestum* or *furtum oblatum*.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
See Law Mind Encyclopedia: Roman Law — Obligations Arising from Delict; Theft in Civil Law Tradition.
---