STOLEN PROPERTY The parties involve are A, as the accused and B, as the victim. Then, the issue here iswhether B can be held liable for offence of receiving stolen property as defined under Section 411 ofthe Penal Code and punishable under the same section for the act committed.LAW PRINCIPLE Section 411 provides that whoever dishonestly receives any stolen property, shall bepunished with imprisonment for a term that may be extended to 5 years and also be liable with fine. In order to determine the criminal liability of A, the elements of this offence must beestablished. Firstly, the property concerned must be stolen property. Section 410 outline stolen propertyas any property that had transferred through by theft, extortion, robbery, criminal misappropriationor criminal breach of trust is a stolen property but if the property comes into the possession of alegally entitled person thus the property ceases to be stolen property. However, the court in thecase of Goh Khiok Phiong v R stated that if the property is not obtained by any of the offences statedin section 410, or the absence of evidence that the property is stolen, the property would not bestolen property. Secondly, the accused must know or has reason to believe that the property is stolen .Knowledge is the highest degree of speculative faculty and consists of the perception of the truththe affirmative or negative propositions. Section 26 defines ‘reason to believe’ as sufficient cause tobelieve a thing, but not otherwise. Then, in the case of Tang Kee Poh v PP, the court held that theprosecution must prove that the accused has knowledge or had reason to believe the property wasstolen. However, in Samad Khamis, the oil was sold at very cheap price, the court held then theaccused had a reason to believe that it was stolen as the price were unreasonable.APPLICATIONCONCLUSION In conclusion, A may be held liable for offence of receiving stolen property as defined underSection 411 of the Penal Code and punishable under the same section for the act committed.