## Facts

- Mr. Allen deposited money with a bank.
- Mrs. Allen obtained part of the deposit from the bank by presenting an instrument bearing Mr. Allen’s forged signature, inducing the bank to pay out cash.
- Mrs. Allen left with Prince and gave him some of the money.
- Prince knew Mrs. Allen had procured the money through the forged authorization and deception of the bank.
- Prince was indicted and convicted of knowingly receiving stolen property (the money alleged to have been stolen from the bank).
- On review, Prince argued the money was not “stolen” because Mrs. Allen’s conduct was obtaining by false pretences rather than larceny.

## Issues

1. Whether money obtained from a bank through a forged authorization and deception is “stolen” by larceny, rather than merely obtained by false pretences.
2. Whether, if the original taking is larceny of the bank’s money, a recipient who knows the circumstances may be convicted of receiving stolen property.

## Decision

- The court affirmed Prince’s conviction for receiving stolen property.
- The court treated Mrs. Allen’s conduct as larceny of the bank’s money, making the cash “stolen” for purposes of the receiving offense.
- The court rejected the argument that the bank’s physical delivery of cash necessarily made the offense false pretences rather than larceny.

## Legal Principles

- A bank that pays out cash remains the immediate possessor of the specific money it holds; fraud that vitiates authorization can support treating the payout as a trespassory taking of the bank’s property.
- Apparent consent induced by a forged withdrawal authority can be treated as legally ineffective, permitting classification of the taking as larceny.
- If the original transaction is larceny, the money is “stolen property,” and a person who receives it knowing the circumstances of the taking may be convicted of receiving stolen property.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a receiving-stolen-property conviction by characterizing a forged, fraud-induced bank payout as larceny of the bank’s money, so the cash remained “stolen” when transferred to a knowing recipient.


The Queen v. Prince, L.R. 1 C.C. 150 (Ct. Cr. Cas. Res. 1868)