I was looking into the definition of theft in the UK and found (emphasis mine):
Theft is defined by section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 as the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it
I also found this answer which explains:
In other words, a thief may say 'I only wished to borrow it', but that won't necessarily amount to a defence under English law. It depends on how long (s)he borrows it for, and how (s)he treats it while borrowing it.
In addition, the case law clarifies what is meant by 'his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other's rights'. This has been held to mean:
Selling, Bargaining with. R v Cahill, R v Lloyd
Rendering Useless. DPP v J
Dealing with in a manner which risks its loss. R v Fernandes, R v Marshall
Borrowing in certain circumstances. R v Lloyd
Pawning. s6(2) Theft Act 1968
Not enough to just deal with it. R v Mitchell
Which makes sense to be but seems to still leave a gap. Based on my understanding of that people can still take your belongings without your permission and as long as they return it promptly, don't pawn it or damage it they have not committed theft. Is that true? Could they be convicted of some other crime then?
Additionally I don't see the use word permanently used in any US reference I've found but it does seem to appear in general definitions of the crime so I'm also curious if the US has any "permanently deprive" criteria as well.
