The Employee Who Took the Cash Box
E, a cashier at a retail store, is accused of taking 50,000,000 rials from the register over two weeks. The store's manager, M, reviews CCTV footage but the camera angle does not capture the register. M also finds that E's drawer was short on three days. E admits in a handwritten note to 'borrowing' 10,000,000 rials and promising to repay, but denies the rest. The prosecutor must decide whether to charge theft (sereqat) or breach of trust (khiyanat dar amanat), whether the amount reaches the threshold for a hadd or only ta'zir, and how to treat E's note.
1. Characterize the offense and determine whether a hadd punishment applies.
Read the worked answer
The threshold question is the taking element. Theft (sereqat) requires an unlawful taking of another's property, typically involving stealth and removal from the owner's custody (herz). A cashier who has lawful access to the register and takes money from it is more naturally characterized as breach of trust (khiyanat dar amanat) than as theft, because the property was entrusted to his custody and the element of breaking custody is absent. The correct charge is khiyanat dar amanat.
On punishment: the hadd for theft (qat'-e yad) requires the statutory conditions, including the nisab (four legal dinars of minted coin, classically) and the herz requirement. Here the amount, the mode of taking, and the entrustment all defeat the hadd. The offense falls under ta'zir, graded by the judge within statutory limits. The prosecutor should charge khiyanat dar amanat and seek ta'zir, not the hadd.
2. How should E's handwritten note be used, and what is its evidentiary weight?
Read the worked answer
The note is an admission (eqrar) as to 10,000,000 rials only. It is a voluntary written acknowledgment and is admissible, but its scope is limited to what it says: 'borrowing' 10,000,000 rials. It does not prove the remaining 40,000,000 rials, and the short-drawer records plus inconclusive CCTV do not fill that gap to the criminal standard. The court must convict only to the extent of the admitted and independently corroborated amount.
Two cautions: (1) the note should be authenticated (handwriting or signature) before reliance; (2) an admission in a criminal matter is not conclusive and may be retracted - the judge must still be satisfied. The prosecution should not treat the note as covering the full 50,000,000 rials, and any conviction for the larger sum would be vulnerable for insufficiency of evidence.