Text in Afrikaans / Theft in South African law is one of the most well-known common law crimes. It is also one of the crimes in respect of which opinions vary considerably. Furtum possessionis is one of the manifestations of the crime of theft at common law. The general requirements of furtum possessionis were already established in Roman law. Emphasis was not placed on the taker of the thing but on the particular position of the person who was deprived of the property. This approach was also followed in Roman-Dutch law. Fur tum possessionis in South African law can be defined as follows: It is the unlawful and intentional appropriation by the owner or someone else of a movable corporeal thing in commercio, in circumstances in which the possessor of the thing has a valid right of retention of the thing, with the intention of depriving the possessor permanently of control of the thing. Theft in the form of furtum possessionis differs in an important respect from theft in the form of the removal of a thing. In the case of removal the complainant can also be a person acting as a holder, that is someone exercising control of the thing on behalf of the owner. In the case of furtum possessionis the complainant is the person with the right of retention and from whose possession the thing is taken away. The accused either possesses the thing as an owner or as a holder before possession of the thing was transferred to the complainant. Mere possession is not enough. The possession of the complainant has to be accompanied by a right to retention. Furthermore the possession of the thing has to be lawful / Criminal & Procedural Law / LL.M. (Criminal & Procedural Law)

Text in Afrikaans / Theft in South African law is one of the most well-known common law crimes. It is also one of the crimes in respect of which opinions vary considerably. Furtum possessionis is one of the manifestations of the crime of theft at common law. The general requirements of furtum possessionis were already established in Roman law. Emphasis was not placed on the taker of the thing but on the particular position of the person who was deprived of the property. This approach was also followed in Roman-Dutch law. Fur tum possessionis in South African law can be defined as follows: It is the unlawful and intentional appropriation by the owner or someone else of a movable corporeal thing in commercio, in circumstances in which the possessor of the thing has a valid right of retention of the thing, with the intention of depriving the possessor permanently of control of the thing. Theft in the form of furtum possessionis differs in an important respect from theft in the form of the removal of a thing. In the case of removal the complainant can also be a person acting as a holder, that is someone exercising control of the thing on behalf of the owner. In the case of furtum possessionis the complainant is the person with the right of retention and from whose possession the thing is taken away. The accused either possesses the thing as an owner or as a holder before possession of the thing was transferred to the complainant. Mere possession is not enough. The possession of the complainant has to be accompanied by a right to retention. Furthermore the possession of the thing has to be lawful / Criminal and Procedural Law / LL.M. (Criminal & Procedural Law)

E-crimes continue to generate grave challenges to the ICT regulatory agenda. Because e-crimes involve a wrongful appropriation of information online, it is enquired whether information is property which is capable of being stolen. This then requires an investigation to be made of the law of property. The basis for this scrutiny is to establish if information is property for purposes of the law. Following a study of the Roman-Dutch law approach to property, it is argued that the emergence of an information society makes real rights in information possible. This is the position because information is one of the indispensable assets of an information society. Given the fact that information can be the object of property, its position in the law of theft is investigated. This study is followed by an examination of the conventional risks that ICTs generate. For example, a risk exists that ICTs may be used as the object of e-crimes. Furthermore, there is a risk that ICTs may become a tool in order to appropriate information unlawfully. Accordingly, the scale and impact of e-crimes is more than those of the offline crimes, for example theft or fraud. The severe challenges that ICTs pose to an information society are likely to continue if clarity is not sought regarding: whether ICTs can be regulated or not, if ICTs can be regulated, how should an ICT regulatory framework be structured? A study of the law and regulation for regulatory purposes reveals that ICTs are spheres where regulations apply or should apply. However, better regulations are appropriate in dealing with the dynamics of these technologies. Smart-regulations, meta-regulations or reflexive regulations, self-regulations and co-regulations are concepts that support better regulations. Better regulations enjoin the regulatory industries, for example the state, businesses and computer users to be involved in establishing ICT regulations. These ICT regulations should specifically be in keeping with the existing e-authentication measures. Furthermore, the codes-based theory, the Danger or Artificial Immune Systems (the AIS) theory, the Systems theory and the Good Regulator Theorem ought to inform ICT regulations. The basis for all this should be to establish a holistic approach to e-authentication. This approach must conform to the Precautionary Approach to E-Authentication or PAEA. PAEA accepts the importance of legal rules in the ICT regulatory agenda. However, it argues that flexible regulations could provide a suitable framework within which ICTs and the ICT risks are controlled. In addition, PAEA submit that a state should not be the single role-player in ICT regulations. Social norms, the market and nature or architecture of the technology to be regulated are also fundamental to the ICT regulatory agenda. / Jurisprudence / LL. D.