Question

One of your classmates asked: "What is the difference between 'Larceny-by-trick' and 'False Pretences'"?

Larceny by Trick – you must prove all the parts of larceny first. Then show that the taking was obtained by deceit (sort of being sneaking, they not know you are going to take w/o paying). The taker has it now, but the true owner was not planning for the taker to have it permanently, or at least not under the circumstances.

False Pretences – not have to prove larceny first, just that fraud was involved in obtaining possession. Saying, implying or acting in a way that gives untrue info to the owner so that he is willing to part with the item, giving the taker permanent possession based on belief in the untrue info.

The original owner’s intentions are a good clue.

Additional information from the Crim Law Mentor B. Hutchins:

The only thing I would add to your false pretences analysis is that the classic end result is that the thief was actually obtaining permanent possession / title to the property. If trickery/fraud is used to induce the owner to temporarily give up possession then it is larceny by trick. If the trickery/fraud is used to obtain actual title then it is false pretences. Looking at what the owner thought they were giving to the thief (temporary possession vs. permanent possession/title) is a good indicator.

I would note that I've never seen either one of these crimes in practice having prosecuted hundreds of theft crime cases. These are very rare crimes. Simple larceny and embezzlement are the big ones.