A jury can find someone guilty of theft (or fraud) without adequate evidence of intent, but that would be a misapplication of the law and arguably wrongful conviction.
If you find out later you took something without paying and make no attempt to return or repay or don’t intend to do so, it might be theft, because then you intend to keep what you’ve taken. I don’t know. If you’re unable to pay it back for whatever reason already at the time of finding out (because of losses or spending), I don’t know how that would be treated, but probably less harshly, and maybe just under civil law, with a debt repayment plan or forfeiture of future assets, not criminal conviction.
Skeptical. Sentencing considers intent, but even those ignorant of laws themselves are found guilty:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat
(EDITED)
I didn’t refer to ignorance of the law. The point is that if you don’t know you took something without paying, it’s not theft. Theft requires intent.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/theft
A jury can find someone guilty of theft (or fraud) without adequate evidence of intent, but that would be a misapplication of the law and arguably wrongful conviction.
If you find out later you took something without paying and make no attempt to return or repay or don’t intend to do so, it might be theft, because then you intend to keep what you’ve taken. I don’t know. If you’re unable to pay it back for whatever reason already at the time of finding out (because of losses or spending), I don’t know how that would be treated, but probably less harshly, and maybe just under civil law, with a debt repayment plan or forfeiture of future assets, not criminal conviction.
Either way, fraud definitely requires intent.