Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 11:38 am
Time: 11:38 am
Results for theft offenses
6 results foundAuthor: Whiteacre, Kevin Title: Metals Theft Database Pilot Study Summary: Metal theft describes the theft of items for the value of their constituent metals. These thefts include a variety of crimes, such as: stealing catalytic converters from cars for their platinum, rhodium and palladium; and stealing copper wires and cable; plumbing; air conditioners and parts for the copper; aluminum siding and gutters; and so on. It is generally agreed that metal thefts have gone up because of steep increases in the prices of metals, spurred by an increase in world demand for metals and increased speculative investment in base metals. Jurisdictions across the country are reporting increased concerns over metal thefts. Almost 30 local and state legislatures in the U.S. have enacted, or are considering, metal theft legislation. Yet, few jurisdictions have hard data on the exact numbers and types of metal thefts occurring. Recently, the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (IMPD) and the University of Indianapolis Community Research Center (CRC) began a collaborative effort to collect such data on metal theft in Indianapolis. The Indianapolis Metal Theft Project seeks to gather and analyze a wide variety of data that will provide a clearer understanding of the incidence, types, costs, and impacts of metal theft in Indianapolis in order to inform and implement strategies to reduce these crimes. This is the first report on a pilot study to establish protocol for collecting, coding, and analyzing metal theft data from IMPD crime reports. It provides some descriptive frequencies of metal theft crimes for January through March of 2008. A summary of the findings indicates that: • From January 1 to March 31, 2008, there were 678 metal thefts reported in Indianapolis. This averages out to about 226 per month or about 7 metal thefts each day. Residences accounted for just over half of the crimes. Another 17 percent were automobiles (catalytic converters mostly). Interestingly, churches have been victimized enough to merit their own category. • Copper was the most stolen metal, with copper pipes and plumbing accounting for more than 17 percent of all items and copper wires accounting for another 8 percent. • On average, one catalytic converter was stolen every day during this three month time period. Approximately, one-quarter of the vehicles were Jeeps, suggesting they might be at a higher than average risk for catalytic converter theft. • Twenty-five percent (169) of the crime reports contained estimates, which were provided by the victim reporting the crime, of the values for the stolen items. For those 169 cases, the average value of the stolen items was $4,314 (median = $1,500). The sum of the reported values was $729,112. • Extrapolating those values to the other 75% of cases suggests the value of stolen metal averaged just under $1 million per month for January, February, and March 2008. • The Northeast District had the most residential metal thefts, while the Southeast and Southwest Districts had the most commercial and vehicle related metal thefts. • Possible steps for moving forward include: 1) participating in the Institute of Recycling Industries, Inc. (ISRI) Theft Alert Program; 2) centralizing responsibility for metal thefts; 3) organizing a Metal Theft Task Force; 4) focusing needs-driven prevention efforts on specific districts; 5) improving crime reporting; and 6) continuing collaboration on the Indianapolis Metal Theft Project. Details: Indianapolis, IN: University of Indianapolis, Community Research Center, 2008. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 1, 2011 at: http://socsci.uindy.edu/crc/pdf/metal_theft_study.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://socsci.uindy.edu/crc/pdf/metal_theft_study.pdf Shelf Number: 121208 Keywords: Metal Theft (Indiana)Stolen PropertyTheft Offenses |
Author: Kooi, Brandon R. Title: Theft of Scrap Metal Summary: This guide begins by describing the problem of scrap metal theft and reviewing factors that increase its risk. It then identifies a series of questions to help you analyze your local scrap-metal theft problem. Finally, it reviews responses to the problem, and what is known about these responses from evaluative research and police practice. While stolen precious metals include gold and silver—commonly targeted in residential burglaries — for the purposes of this guide, scrap metal theft includes mainly stolen copper, aluminum, brass, zinc, nickel, platinum, and bronze. These metals have value only when sold to a scrap metal dealer who arranges for the metal to be melted and reshaped for other uses. By contrast, gold and silver commonly have intrinsic value, either to the thief or to someone else who values the metal in its original shape. Scrap metal theft is but one of the larger set of theft and sale of stolen property problems. This guide is limited to addressing the particular harms scrap metal theft causes. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2010. 70p. Source: Internet Resource: Problem-Oriented Guides for Police Problem-Specific Guides Series No. 58; Accessed April 1, 2011 at: http://www.popcenter.org/problems/pdfs/metal_theft.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.popcenter.org/problems/pdfs/metal_theft.pdf Shelf Number: 121210 Keywords: Crime PreventionMetal TheftProblem-Oriented PolicingStolen PropertyTheft Offenses |
Author: Gwynn, Mike Title: Theft of Construction Plant & Equipment Summary: This paper examines the problem of construction plant and equipment theft as it affects various insurance markets in the world and the actions which can be taken by those plant operators who wish to reduce their exposure to theft. Details: International Association of Engineering Insurers, 2005. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 15, 2012 at: http://www.imia.com/downloads/imia_papers/wgp43_2005.pdf Year: 2005 Country: International URL: http://www.imia.com/downloads/imia_papers/wgp43_2005.pdf Shelf Number: 126731 Keywords: BurglaryConstruction Equipement TheftCrime PreventionCrimes Against BusinessesProperty CrimesTheft Offenses |
Author: Sturmey, Tony Title: Plant Theft in the UK & the Industry Response Summary: Construction Equipment (usually referred to as Plant) is commonly found at building sites and roadworks. The term “Plant” covers a variety of equipment from handheld portable tools to large earthmoving equipment and mobile cranes. There are many types of plant covering a wide variety of uses including such items as generators, excavators, and access platforms. As technology progresses, Plant has become more compact. A side effect of this is that Plant has become easier to steal. Like anything which has value and for which there is a ready market, machinery and equipment is highly susceptible to theft. For Plant, the risk is greater, as most items can be either carried away or, in the case of a large proportion of mobile plant, started with the use of a single common key. The precise extent of the problem in financial terms is open for dispute, but it is accepted the problem is commonplace in the UK costing in the region of £1.5 million every week, with mini-diggers alone producing annual estimated losses of around £20.0 million. The principal victims of Plant theft are the contractors, the Insurers, banks and financial institutions. Uninsured losses to the Plant owner are estimated to be twice the value of the item stolen and reflect the cost of delays and administrative expenses that arise following the theft. Once stolen, equipment is rarely recovered. Until recently, the recovery rates for Plant were in the region of 5%. This compares to 70% for other vehicles such as cars. There are numerous causes for this wide discrepancy, not least of which is the lack of any uniform and centralised data registration system for recording Plant identification. In fact, even when it is recovered, items of Plant often remains unidentified by Insurers who lack specific details of what was insured and Owners who, having received monies from their Insurers, have already replaced the stolen items. In the UK Insurance market it is common practise to write policies on a “blanket” or unspecified basis. As a result Insurers often do not have the specific details of the Plant they are covering, no idea if the declared New Replacement Value is accurate and very little idea how it’s being protected against Theft. Only in situations when the Plant is hired out do Insurers retain, at least some possibility of recouping their losses under Hire Conditions that may make the Hirer responsible for loss or damage. In an effort to combat theft, the “Plant Theft Action Group” (PTAG) was formed in 1996 as a Home office advisory body under the auspices of the Vehicle Crime Reduction Team (VCRAT). The Home Office produced the first version of its Security Guidance Document in 2002. Despite the efforts of this and other industry groups, until recently little progress had been made, as Insurers, manufacturers and users failed to find a common basis to move forward. The picture that emerges is that overall Plant is poorly protected, with mini-excavators and trailer/towed Plant being particularly vulnerable. Details: International Association of Engineering Insurers, 2010. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 2, 2012 at http://www.imia.com/downloads/external_papers/EP44_2010.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.imia.com/downloads/external_papers/EP44_2010.pdf Shelf Number: 127100 Keywords: BurglaryConstruction Equipment TheftCosts of CrimeProperty CrimesTheft Offenses |
Author: Byles, Dennis Title: Sentencing trends in the higher courts of Victoria 2007–08 to 2011–12. Theft Summary: This Sentencing Snapshot describes sentencing outcomes for the offence of theft and details the age and gender of people sentenced for this offence in the County and Supreme Courts of Victoria between 2007–08 and 2011–12. Except where otherwise noted, the data represent sentences imposed at first instance. A person who dishonestly appropriates any property belonging to another person with the intention of permanently depriving that person of the property is guilty of theft. Theft is an indictable offence that carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment5 and/or a fine of 1,200 penalty units. Indictable offences are more serious offences triable before a judge and jury in the County or Supreme Court. Theft can also be tried summarily by the Magistrates’ Court if the property involved meets certain criteria, the Magistrates’ Court considers it appropriate and the defendant consents. Theft was the principal offence in 2.2% of cases sentenced in the higher courts between 2007–08 and 2011–12. Details: Melbourne, VIC, Australia: Sentencing Advisory Council, 2013. 14p. Source: Internet Resource: Sentencing Snapshot No. 137: Accessed March 30, 2013 at: https://sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/files/snapshot_137_sentencing_trends_for_theft_in_the_higher_courts_of_victoria_march_2013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Australia URL: https://sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/files/snapshot_137_sentencing_trends_for_theft_in_the_higher_courts_of_victoria_march_2013.pdf Shelf Number: 128182 Keywords: Property CrimesSentencing (Victoria, Australia)StealingTheft Offenses |
Author: National Insurance Crime Bureau Title: 2012 Equipment Theft Report Summary: his report, co-produced with the National Equipment Register (NER), examines heavy equipment theft data submitted by law enforcement to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) and profiles that data according to theft state, theft city, theft month, equipment manufacturer, equipment style (type) and year of manufacture. The report also examines heavy equipment recoveries in 2012 based on those same criteria. NER is a division of Verisk Crime Analytics, a Verisk Analytics (Nasdaq:VRSK) company. In 2012, a total of 10,925 heavy equipment thefts were reported to law enforcement-a decrease of 7 percent from the 11,705 reported in 2011. When compared with the 13,511 reported thefts in 2008, there has been an overall 19 percent reduction in heavy equipment thefts. Texas ranked number one in 2012 with 1,401 reported thefts. In second place was North Carolina with 1,037 thefts followed by Florida in third with 890 thefts. In fourth place was California with 686 thefts, and tied for fifth-Georgia and South Carolina with 595 each. The top five cities with the most thefts were Houston (163); Miami (107); Conroe, Texas (83); Oklahoma City, Okla. (79) and Fresno, Calif. (64). The three most stolen heavy equipment items in 2012 were: Mowers (riding or garden tractor: 5,363); Loaders (skid steer, wheeled: 1,943); and, Tractors (wheeled or tracked: 1,459). Heavy equipment manufactured by John Deere was the number one theft target in 2012 followed in order by Kubota Tractor Corp., Bobcat, Caterpillar and Toro. As for recoveries, only 20 percent of heavy equipment stolen in 2012 was found, making it a costly crime for insurance companies, equipment owners and rental agencies. NICB urges equipment owners to incorporate theft prevention strategies into their business practices and recommends the following theft prevention tips:Install hidden fuel shut-off systems; Remove fuses and circuit breakers when equipment is unattended; Render equipment immobile or difficult to move after hours or on weekends by clustering it in a "wagon circle," Place more easily transported items, such as generators and compressors, in the middle of the circle surrounded by larger pieces of equipment; Maintain a photo archive and a specific list of the PIN and component part serial numbers of each piece of heavy equipment in a central location. Stamp or engrave equipment parts with identifying marks, numbers or corporate logos; Use hydro locks to fix articulated equipment in a curved position, preventing it from traveling in a straight line; Use sleeve locks to fix backhoe pads in an extended position, keeping wheels off the ground. Details: Des Plaines, IL: National Insurance Crime Bureau, 2012. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 17, 2013 at Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: https://www.nicb.org/File%20Library/Public%20Affairs/2012-NICB-HEreport.pdf Shelf Number: 131784 Keywords: BurglaryConstruction Equipment TheftCosts of CrimeEquipment TheftProperty CrimesTheft Offenses |