Legal Disclaimer: This article provides general legal information about the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case involves unique facts and circumstances. If you are facing charges under the UCMJ, consult with a qualified military defense attorney immediately.
Both larceny and wrongful appropriation involve taking another’s property without consent, but they differ in a critical element: intent regarding return. Article 121 Larceny requires intent to permanently deprive the owner of their property. Article 134 Wrongful Appropriation covers taking property without consent but without intent to keep it permanently. One is stealing; the other is unauthorized borrowing.
The Intent Distinction
Article 121 Larceny requires:
Taking property of another
Without consent
With intent to permanently deprive
The thief means to keep what they take
Article 134 Wrongful Appropriation requires:
Taking property of another
Without consent
Without intent to permanently deprive
The taker intends to return the property eventually
Why the Distinction Matters
Larceny is more serious because:
The owner loses their property permanently
The full value is taken
The crime is complete theft
The harm is irreversible
Wrongful appropriation is less serious because:
The owner eventually gets their property back
The harm is temporary
The taking resembles borrowing without permission
The intent wasn’t to steal permanently
Article 121: Larceny Elements
Larceny requires:
Taking. Obtaining possession or control.
Property of another. Something belonging to someone else.
Of a certain value. The value affects punishment.
Without consent. The owner didn’t authorize the taking.
With intent to permanently deprive. The taker meant to keep it.
The permanent deprivation intent is the defining element.
Article 134: Wrongful Appropriation Elements
Wrongful appropriation requires:
Taking. Obtaining possession or control.
Property of another. Something belonging to someone else.
Without consent. The owner didn’t authorize it.
Without intent to permanently deprive. The taker planned to return it.
Prejudice or discredit. Article 134’s general requirement.
The absence of permanent deprivation intent distinguishes it from larceny.
Typical Fact Patterns
Clear larceny (Article 121):
A service member takes a colleague’s laptop, sells it online, and pockets the cash. Clear intent to permanently deprive.
Someone takes military equipment and ships it home to keep. Permanent deprivation intended.
A service member takes another’s watch and wears it as their own indefinitely. Keeping it means permanent deprivation.
Clear wrongful appropriation (Article 134):
A service member takes a colleague’s car to run errands, planning to return it within hours. Taking without consent but intending to return.
Someone “borrows” tools from the shop without permission, uses them for a personal project, and returns them the next day. Unauthorized use without permanent intent.
A service member takes a bicycle to ride to the PX and back, intending to return it. Temporary taking without consent.
The key question:
When you took it, did you intend to keep it or return it?
Proving Intent
For larceny, prosecutors show permanent intent through:
Actions inconsistent with return (selling, destroying, hiding)
Statements showing intent to keep
Length of retention
Manner of taking (concealment suggests permanence)
For wrongful appropriation, defense shows temporary intent through:
Return of the property
Statements about borrowing
Short duration of taking
Lack of concealment
The “Borrowed Without Asking” Defense
Many larceny defendants claim: “I was just borrowing it.”
This claim is scrutinized carefully:
Did you actually return it (or try to)?
How long did you keep it?
Did you treat it like borrowed property or owned property?
What did you say when caught?
“Borrowing” that lasts indefinitely looks like stealing.
Punishment Comparison
Article 121 (Larceny):
Value over $1,000: dishonorable discharge, forfeiture, confinement for 5 years
Military property: enhanced penalties possible
Value under $1,000: lesser maximum punishment
Article 134 (Wrongful Appropriation):
Value over $1,000: bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture, confinement for 6 months
Value under $1,000: confinement for 3 months
Significantly less punishment than larceny, reflecting the lesser harm.
Lesser Included Offense
Wrongful appropriation is a lesser included offense of larceny:
If you’re charged with larceny
But the evidence only shows temporary taking
You can be convicted of wrongful appropriation instead
This gives courts flexibility when intent is unclear.
The Return Question
Returning property doesn’t automatically convert larceny to wrongful appropriation:
If you intended permanent deprivation when you took it: Larceny, even if you later returned it due to guilt or fear.
If you intended temporary use from the start: Wrongful appropriation, assuming you did return it.
Intent at the time of taking determines the offense.
Defenses
For larceny:
Consent (owner authorized the taking)
Claim of right (genuine belief it was yours)
No intent to permanently deprive (wrongful appropriation instead)
The property wasn’t taken
For wrongful appropriation:
Consent (owner authorized the use)
Claim of right
No taking occurred
The property was yours
The Military Property Factor
Both offenses apply to military property:
Taking government equipment without authorization can be either offense depending on intent.
Unauthorized use of military vehicles can be wrongful appropriation if returned, larceny if kept.
“Borrowing” from supply without authorization is at minimum wrongful appropriation.
Military property cases are treated seriously regardless of which offense applies.
Practical Implications
Don’t take what isn’t yours without permission, even temporarily:
“Borrowing” without consent is still criminal
Even if you plan to return it, wrongful appropriation has real consequences
Ask first; unauthorized taking is never acceptable
If charged with larceny:
The “I was going to return it” defense requires evidence
Actual return helps but doesn’t guarantee the defense succeeds
Your actions and statements at the time of taking matter most
Frequently Asked Questions
If I took something but returned it before anyone noticed, can I still be charged?
Yes. Both larceny and wrongful appropriation are complete when you take the property without consent. Returning it later doesn’t undo the offense. However, quick return strongly supports the claim that you never intended permanent deprivation, making wrongful appropriation (rather than larceny) the appropriate charge. Additionally, taking and returning before discovery might mean no one reports it, but the offense technically occurred. Prosecutors consider all circumstances including return in deciding whether and what to charge.
What if I took something thinking it was mine, then realized it wasn’t?
Claim of right is a defense to both larceny and wrongful appropriation. If you genuinely believed the property was yours when you took it, you lacked the criminal intent required for either offense. Once you realized it wasn’t yours, you should return it promptly. If you kept it after realizing the mistake, that continued retention could become wrongful appropriation or larceny depending on your intent going forward. The initial innocent taking is protected; knowing retention is not.
How long can I “borrow” something before it becomes larceny?
There’s no specific time limit, but duration is evidence of intent. Taking someone’s car for an hour and returning it suggests temporary intent (wrongful appropriation). Taking it for weeks suggests permanent intent (larceny). Courts examine the totality: how long you kept it, what you did with it, whether you concealed it, what you said about it. Extended retention without explanation increasingly looks like permanent deprivation. The safer your intent claim, the shorter the “borrowing” period.