Definition
Stolen property refers to personal property that has been unlawfully taken from its rightful owner through theft, robbery, burglary, embezzlement, fraud, or other criminal act, without the owner's consent and with the intent to permanently or substantially deprive the owner of it.
The term operates in two principal legal contexts:
1. As the subject of a theft offense — the property that was taken, whose identity, value, and ownership are elements the prosecution must establish.
2. As the subject of a receiving or possession offense — property known or believed by the possessor to have been stolen, the knowing possession, receipt, concealment, or disposal of which is itself a separate crime.
The value of stolen property is typically determinative of whether a theft offense is charged as a felony or misdemeanor. The property's status as "stolen" generally attaches at the moment of the unlawful taking and continues until the property is returned to the owner or otherwise loses its tainted character through lawful process.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): Property that has been taken from its owner illegally, without permission.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): Not independently defined; "stolen" as the past participle of "steal" — to take and carry away feloniously; to take without right or leave, and with intent to keep wrongfully.
The gap between common and legal meaning is meaningful in one key respect: ordinary usage treats "stolen property" as a binary fact — either something was stolen or it was not. Legal usage is more dynamic. Property that was stolen may cease to be legally "stolen" for purposes of a receiving offense if the theft was completed so long ago, or if the property passed through enough hands under certain conditions, that the taint is treated as severed. Conversely, property obtained by fraud or embezzlement qualifies as "stolen property" under most modern statutes, even though common usage would not typically describe a fraud victim's property as having been "stolen."
---
Common Confusion
STOLEN PROPERTY vs. LOST PROPERTY: Lost property has been unintentionally parted with by the owner; stolen property has been taken without consent. The distinction matters for both the original taking offense (finding lost property and keeping it may be theft in some jurisdictions, but involves different intent analysis) and for subsequent possession offenses (knowingly receiving property known to be lost is generally not the same offense as receiving stolen property).
STOLEN PROPERTY vs. EMBEZZLED OR FRAUDULENTLY OBTAINED PROPERTY: Historically, statutes and courts sometimes distinguished property obtained by stealth from property obtained through fraud or breach of trust. Modern "theft consolidation" statutes in most jurisdictions treat all such property as stolen for purposes of both the primary offense and receiving offenses, but researchers working with older materials must be alert to this distinction.
---
Core Elements
For a receiving or possession of stolen property offense, courts generally require:
1. The property was in fact stolen (or, in some jurisdictions, that the defendant believed it to be stolen — a subjective standard that can capture "sting" operations involving property that was not actually stolen).
2. The defendant received, possessed, concealed, bought, or disposed of the property.
3. The defendant knew or believed the property was stolen at the time of the act.
4. The defendant acted without lawful justification (law enforcement recovery, for example, is excluded).
The knowledge element is the most litigated. Willful blindness — deliberately avoiding knowledge of facts that would establish the stolen character of property — is treated as equivalent to actual knowledge in most jurisdictions.
---
Why It Matters in Research
Possession as evidence of guilt is the central evidentiary doctrine attached to this term in historical sources, and it remains significant today. Bouvier captures the classical formulation: recent unexplained possession of stolen property is prima facie evidence of guilty participation in the theft itself — not merely in a receiving offense. Researchers tracing this doctrine should be aware that it has been subject to constitutional scrutiny under modern due process standards, particularly regarding mandatory inference instructions to juries.
The term "stolen property" in older statutes and cases often had a narrower scope than it does today. Pre-consolidation materials may separately address larceny, embezzlement, false pretenses, and receiving, with "stolen property" attaching only to goods taken by larceny. Searching older indexes under only "stolen property" will miss cases involving fraudulently or fiduciarily obtained goods.
Valuation methodology for stolen property appears throughout the corpus in sentencing and grading contexts. Researchers should watch for variation between replacement value, market value, and sentimental value standards — courts have not applied these uniformly.
For intellectual property, the application of stolen property statutes is contested and evolving. The Law Mind Property Law Encyclopedia entry on intellectual property as personal property provides useful framing for how courts have approached whether intangibles can be "stolen" under traditional criminal statutes.
Interstate transportation of stolen property carries federal dimensions (the National Stolen Property Act), which substantially expands jurisdiction and creates a parallel federal corpus separate from state theft law.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Bouvier's entry focuses almost entirely on the evidentiary consequence of possession — specifically, the prima facie inference of guilt arising from recent unexplained possession of stolen property. This reflects the doctrine's centrality to nineteenth-century criminal practice, when direct evidence of theft was often unavailable and circumstantial possession evidence carried much of the prosecutorial burden.
Bouvier's framing is prosecution-oriented and treats jury resolution of the inference as essentially conclusive when possession is unexplained. Modern constitutional doctrine has complicated this picture, requiring that permissive inferences rather than mandatory presumptions be used in jury instructions. Researchers relying on Bouvier for this doctrine should cross-check against twentieth-century due process developments.
What Bouvier does not address — and what researchers need from other sources — is the substantive definition of what makes property "stolen" in the first instance, the separate receiving offense as a distinct crime, and the grading consequences of property value. For these, the historical dictionary record is incomplete, and encyclopedia and treatise sources fill the gap.
---
Jurisdictional Note
Most U.S. jurisdictions have adopted consolidated theft statutes that treat larceny, embezzlement, and obtaining by false pretenses as a single offense, unifying the definition of stolen property across those categories. A smaller number retain distinct offenses, and the older distinction remains operationally important in those states. Federal law under the National Stolen Property Act has its own jurisdictional threshold requirements (currently over $5,000 in value and interstate nexus).
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Receiving Stolen Property — The Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia (criminal_69): Primary reference for the receiving offense, knowledge element, and modern statutory treatment.
Personal Property: Intellectual Property as Personal Property — The Law Mind Property Law Encyclopedia (property_138): Relevant for questions about whether intangible property can qualify as stolen property under criminal statutes.
---