§ 3932. Theft of leased property.
(a) Offense defined.--A person who obtains personal property under an agreement for the lease or rental
of the property is guilty of theft if he intentionally deals with the property as
his own.
(b) Definition.--As used in this section:
(1) A person "deals with the property as his own" if he sells, secretes, destroys, converts
to his own use or otherwise disposes of the property.
(2) A "written demand to return the property is delivered" when it is sent simultaneously
by first class mail, evidenced by a certificate of mailing, and by registered or certified
mail to the address provided by the lessee.
(c) Presumption.--A person shall be prima facie presumed to have intent if he:
(1) signs the lease or rental agreement with a name other than his own and fails to return
the property within the time specified in the agreement; or
(2) fails to return the property to its owner within seven days after a written demand
to return the property is delivered.
(d) Exception.--This section shall not apply to secured transactions as defined in Title 13 (relating
to commercial code).
(Aug. 8, 1977, P.L.184, No.49, eff. 90 days; Nov. 1, 1979, P.L.255, No.86, eff. Jan.
1, 1980; Oct. 9, 2008, P.L.1403, No.111, eff. imd.)
2008 Amendment. Act 111 amended subsecs. (b) and (c)(2).
Cross References. Section 3932 is referred to in sections 5552, 8310 of Title 42 (Judiciary and Judicial
Procedure).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1987–2023 · leading case:
Com. v. Johnson, B., No. 356 MDA 2021 (Pa. Super. Ct. Jan. 14, 2022).
Com. v. Johnson, B., No. 356 MDA 2021 (Pa. Super. Ct. Jan. 14, 2022).
· cites it 8× “1 18 Pa.C.S. § 3932(a). J-S30031-21 for Barbush Rentals, testified that when he learned that the vehicle was not returned, he requested the records office to send a letter of demand to [Appellant].”
Com. v. Wolfe, P., No. 211 WDA 2017 (Pa. Super. Ct. Nov. 17, 2017).
· cites it 3× “18 Pa.C.S. § 3932. -3- J-S54026-17 Wolfe argues that the evidence was insufficient to convict him because the Commonwealth did not present evidence that Wolfe sold, secreted, destroyed, converted to his own use, or otherwise disposed of the property.”
Com. v. Barry, M., No. 20 MDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Ct. Oct. 3, 2023).
· cites it 2× “: FILED: OCTOBER 3, 2023 Appellant, Melanie Anne Barry, appeals from the aggregate judgment of sentence of 15 to 42 months’ incarceration, imposed after a jury convicted her of theft of leased property (18 Pa.C.S. § 3932(a)) and receiving stolen property (18 Pa.”
Commonwealth v. Ling, 43 Pa. D. & C.3d 20 (1987).
· cites it 2× “18 Pa.C.S. § 3932(d). 3 Petitioner contends thát it did not retain security interests in the leased property, and that accordingly the district attorney committed a gross abuse of discretion in disapproving the twó complaints.”
18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3932(a): 3 cases
Com. v. Johnson, B., No. 356 MDA 2021 (Pa. Super. Ct. Jan. 14, 2022).
“1 18 Pa.C.S. § 3932(a). J-S30031-21 for Barbush Rentals, testified that when he learned that the vehicle was not returned, he requested the records office to send a letter of demand to [Appellant].”
Com. v. Barry, M., No. 20 MDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Ct. Oct. 3, 2023).
“: FILED: OCTOBER 3, 2023 Appellant, Melanie Anne Barry, appeals from the aggregate judgment of sentence of 15 to 42 months’ incarceration, imposed after a jury convicted her of theft of leased property (18 Pa.C.S. § 3932(a)) and receiving stolen property (18 Pa.”
Com. v. Wolfe, P., No. 211 WDA 2017 (Pa. Super. Ct. Nov. 17, 2017).
“18 Pa.C.S. § 3932. -3- J-S54026-17 Wolfe argues that the evidence was insufficient to convict him because the Commonwealth did not present evidence that Wolfe sold, secreted, destroyed, converted to his own use, or otherwise disposed of the property.”
18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3932(b)(1): 1 case
Com. v. Johnson, B., No. 356 MDA 2021 (Pa. Super. Ct. Jan. 14, 2022).
“1 18 Pa.C.S. § 3932(a). J-S30031-21 for Barbush Rentals, testified that when he learned that the vehicle was not returned, he requested the records office to send a letter of demand to [Appellant].”
18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3932(b)(2): 1 case
Com. v. Johnson, B., No. 356 MDA 2021 (Pa. Super. Ct. Jan. 14, 2022).
“1 18 Pa.C.S. § 3932(a). J-S30031-21 for Barbush Rentals, testified that when he learned that the vehicle was not returned, he requested the records office to send a letter of demand to [Appellant].”
18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3932(c): 2 cases
Com. v. Wolfe, P., No. 211 WDA 2017 (Pa. Super. Ct. Nov. 17, 2017).
“18 Pa.C.S. § 3932. -3- J-S54026-17 Wolfe argues that the evidence was insufficient to convict him because the Commonwealth did not present evidence that Wolfe sold, secreted, destroyed, converted to his own use, or otherwise disposed of the property.”
Com. v. Johnson, B., No. 356 MDA 2021 (Pa. Super. Ct. Jan. 14, 2022).
“1 18 Pa.C.S. § 3932(a). J-S30031-21 for Barbush Rentals, testified that when he learned that the vehicle was not returned, he requested the records office to send a letter of demand to [Appellant].”
18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3932(c)(2): 1 case
Com. v. Johnson, B., No. 356 MDA 2021 (Pa. Super. Ct. Jan. 14, 2022).
“1 18 Pa.C.S. § 3932(a). J-S30031-21 for Barbush Rentals, testified that when he learned that the vehicle was not returned, he requested the records office to send a letter of demand to [Appellant].”
18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3932(d): 1 case
Commonwealth v. Ling, 43 Pa. D. & C.3d 20 (1987).
“18 Pa.C.S. § 3932(d). 3 Petitioner contends thát it did not retain security interests in the leased property, and that accordingly the district attorney committed a gross abuse of discretion in disapproving the twó complaints.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.