R v Velumyl – Case Summary

R v Velumyl

Court of Appeal

Citations: [1988] Crim LR 299.


The defendant took £1050 from his employer’s safe, without authority and against company policy. He loaned the money to a friend expecting it to be paid back a few days later. When he was caught, he refused to name the friend.

The defendant was convicted of theft. He appealed his conviction on the grounds that, since he intended to pay the money back (once his friend paid him back), he did not have any intention to permanently deprive his employer.

  1. Did the defendant intend to permanently deprive his employer?

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction. The defendant did not intend to return the exact property taken: he intended to give back property of equivalent value. He therefore intended to permanently deprive his employer of the original money. His intention to return the money was only relevant to the question of dishonesty, and in this case the defendant had admitted he had been dishonest.

This Case is Authority For…

A person who takes money, intending to replace it with an equivalent sum, intends to permanently deprive the original owner of the money. This is because they are trying to force the owner into a substitution of property which they did not consent to.