Sec. 52-564. Treble damages for theft. Any person who steals any property of another, or knowingly receives and conceals stolen property, shall pay the owner treble his damages.
(1949 Rev., S. 8305; 1963, P.A. 99.)
History: 1963 act provided recovery be treble damages rather than treble the value of the property stolen.
See chapter 952, part IX, re larceny, robbery and related offenses.
In a public prosecution for theft, the court will not on conviction award treble damages to the owner. 6 C. 105. Plaintiff not bound to prove his case “beyond a reasonable doubt”. 30 C. 103. Rules of evidence are the same as in any civil suit. Id., 556. This is not a penal statute. 74 C. 135; 87 C. 468. Is constitutional. 82 C. 5. Statutory treble damages discussed. 188 C. 36. Cited. 206 C. 125; 216 C. 200; 236 C. 582; 241 C. 678. Statutory theft under section is synonymous with larceny as provided in Sec. 53a-119. 255 C. 20. Statutory theft requires that defendant wrongfully take, obtain or hold property of another. Id. Preponderance of the evidence standard of proof applies to statutory theft claims brought under section. 297 C. 26.
Cited. 1 CA 303; 8 CA 96; 11 CA 161; 18 CA 20; 33 CA 303; 37 CA 7; 42 CA 599; 43 CA 1; 45 CA 46; Id., 324. Statute synonymous with larceny under Sec. 53a-119. 47 CA 517. Liability for conversion is a precondition to finding of liability for treble damages under section. 86 CA 527. Because count of plaintiff’s complaint alleging civil theft is devoid of any factual assertion that defendants acted with the requisite intent to permanently deprive plaintiff of her property, plaintiff failed to state a cause of action for civil theft, and count is legally insufficient. 99 CA 719. Plaintiff is required to prove the actions alleged by clear and convincing evidence in order to be entitled to an award of treble damages. 112 CA 160; judgment reversed in part, see 297 C. 26. In order to prove liability under section, plaintiff only had to show that defendant engaged in conduct that was synonymous with larceny, and was not required to show that the funds had been stolen by defendant or anyone else; given defendant’s knowledge concerning source and disposition of funds in question, his continued failure to return funds constituted an intentional decision on his part to deprive plaintiff of its use of funds. 136 CA 99.