As for scholarly consensus, it is well known.

Theft is taking property from its owner, or his representative, in a concealed manner.

Our statement, “taking property,” excludes taking something that is not deemed property. Thus, if a person steals tobacco, this is not legally considered theft, because tobacco enjoys no inviolability. Hence, if someone were to destroy it, he would not be liable for compensation.

Likewise, if he steals wine, this is not legally considered theft, because it is not property. Property is an object whose use is lawful, whereas this is an unlawful substance.

Our statement, “in a concealed manner,” excludes what is done openly. Thus, if someone takes another person’s property openly—whether by deliberately seizing it or snatching it from his hand—this is not theft.

Our statement, “from its owner or his representative,” includes in the words “or his representative” a borrower, a lessee, a depositary, a legal guardian, and everyone who holds another person’s property by the permission of the Sacred Law or by the owner’s permission. The owner’s representative, then, is anyone in whose possession another’s property is held with the authorization of the Sacred Law or the owner.

This excludes the case where one steals it from someone other than its owner or the owner’s representative—for example, if one steals usurped property from its usurper. This is not theft, because, in the usurper’s possession, it has no inviolability.

Thus, if you know that this man has unlawfully seized some property from another person, and you then steal that property, this is not theft, because it was not taken from its owner or the owner’s representative.

But we do not say this in order to affirm the false principle held by