5. The perpetrator destroyed or appropriated certain property.

5.1. The perpetrator destroyed certain property; OR

P.1. Evidence that property was burned.

P.2. Evidence that property was destroyed by shelling.

P.2.1. Evidence of the destruction of a part of a village by means of shelling.

P.3. Evidence that property was destroyed by explosives.

P.4. Evidence that property was destroyed by fighting.

P.4.1. Evidence of the destruction of houses caused by firing.

P.5. Evidence that property was pulled down.

P.6. Evidence that property was mutilated.

5.2. The perpetrator appropriated certain property.

5.2.1. Evidence of widespread and systematic acts of dispossession and acquisition.

P.7. Evidence of a policy of reprisal through pillage.

P.8. Evidence of a practice of appropriation of property following eviction.

P.9. Evidence of widespread and systematic plunders carried out on a discriminatory basis.

P.10. Evidence of the appropriation of property by military forces.

P.10.1. Evidence that military forces came to a village in trucks and tractors and carried away property belonging to the civilians.

P.11. Evidence of an organized seizure of property undertaken within the framework of a systematic economic exploitation of occupied territory.

P.12. Evidence of abusive and illegal requisitions of private property.

P.12.1. Evidence of compelling the supply of horses and vehicles.

P.13. Evidence of seizing/taking possession of public property.

P.13.1. Evidence of taking possession of means of production.

P.13.2. Evidence of seizure of property.

P.13.3. Evidence of removal of machinery.

P.14. Evidence of forced transfers of private property.

P.14.1. Evidence of documents transferring of titles of property being signed under force.

5.2.2. Evidence of acts of theft by individuals for their private gain.

P.15. Evidence of stealing.

P.15.1. Evidence of stealing from detainees.

P.15.2. Evidence of stealing from private individuals.

P.16. Evidence of theft by civilians.

P.17. Necessary: Evidence that the value of the property taken involved grave consequences for the victim.

5. The perpetrator destroyed or appropriated certain property.

5.1. The perpetrator destroyed certain property; OR

General evidentiary comment:

Werle notes that "only destruction of property, not merely damage to it, is covered" (Werle, Principles of International Criminal Law, para 100).

Knut Dörmann, Elements of War Crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (2005),, p. 83:

"The following conduct may, inter alia, constitute destruction: to set fire to property, to destroy, pull down, mutilate […]"

P.1. Evidence that property was burned.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Prosecutor v. Milutinović et al., Case No. IT-05-87-T, Judgement (TC) Vol II, 26 February 2009, para. 145:

"145. Aside from the evidence relating specifically to the fires started on the night of 24 March, residents of Đakovica/Gjakova town testified that Kosovo Albanian houses continued to be burned in late March and early April 1999. Haxhibeqiri’s evidence that he saw police and paramilitary forces lighting fires during the period of the NATO bombing is consistent with Nike Peraj’s testimony that he saw MUP members and paramilitaries setting houses on fire in Đakovica/Gjakova town, using "bombs" to light these more quickly.392 K90 referred to a practice of using aerosol cans to ignite the buildings in his account of burning houses along with MUP members in the town. The Chamber notes that this is supported by the accounts given by Vejsa and K74 of such burning being directed exclusively at Kosovo Albanians. Consequently, the Chamber finds that the MUP, along with paramilitaries, was responsible for burning the houses of Kosovo Albanians in Đakovica/Gjakova town in March and April 1999. The only evidence of VJ involvement in the burning of Kosovo Albanian houses in Đakovica/Gjakova town at this stage was that provided by K90, who testified about his own participation."

Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgement (TC), 1 September 2004, paras. 600, 608:

"600. The Trial Chamber is satisfied that in the period relevant to the Indictment, Bosnian Serb forces shelled towns and villages predominantly inhabited by Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats, causing extensive damage to houses and business premises. After the shelling, the Bosnian Serb forces entered the towns and villages, looting and setting on fire apartments, houses and business premises belonging to Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats. The Trial Chamber finds that the purpose of such attacks was to create terror, destroy these properties, cities, towns and villages and prompt non-Serbs to abandon their houses, viallges or towns and leave permanently."

"608.The Trial Chamber finds that the town of Bosanka Krupa was shelled by Bosnian Serb forces on 22 April 1992. Houses predominantly inhabited by Bosnian Muslims were set on fire and destroyed.¹⁵³⁹"

"¹⁵³⁹. BT-56, T. 17496 (private session ); Jadranko Saran, T. 17289."

Prosecutor v. Mladen Naletilić and Vinko Martinović, Case No. IT-98-34-T, Judgement (TC), 31 March 2003, para. 586:

"586. The deliberate destruction of the houses in Sovici started on 18 April 1993 and continued until 23 April.¹⁴⁴⁸ In contrast to the shelling, the BH Muslim houses were now specifically targeted.¹⁴⁴⁹ Defence witness NN confirmed that BH Muslim houses were torched but denied that all houses were destroyed.¹⁴⁵⁰ A Report from the ECMM recounts that "during the fighting the HVO have systematically burn [sic] Muslim houses".¹⁴⁵¹ On 20 April 1993, the HVO was firing at Doljani.¹⁴⁵² The village was on fire and houses were burning.¹⁴⁵³ International observers visiting Doljani after the conflict reported that half of Doljani were destroyed.¹⁴⁵⁴ The hamlet of Kraj was destroyed by shelling.¹⁴⁵⁵"

"¹⁴⁴⁸ - Witness W, T 3180-3181; witness C testified that the houses were being set on fire on approximately 21 or 22 April 1993, witness C, T 862; witness X, T 3327; witness JJ, T 5004; exhibit PP 357 (confidential).
¹⁴⁴⁹ - Witness W testified "Can you tell the Chamber, please, what was the condition of the houses in Sovici when you passed through the village at that time? A. But I was passing by Croat houses all the time. Q. Well, what was the condition of those houses? A. Well, naturally like today. Nobody ever touched them, not a bullet nor anything else" witness W, T 3179-3181.
¹⁴⁵⁰ - Defence witness NN, T 12900, 12994.
¹⁴⁵¹ - Exhibit PP 344.
¹⁴⁵² - Exhibit PP 928, pp 74, 75,77.
¹⁴⁵³ - Witness RR, T 6441-6459, while being taken from Orlovac to Krcine, saw the village on fire.
¹⁴⁵⁴ - Witness JJ, T 5008; exhibit PP 357 (confidential).
¹⁴⁵⁵ - Witness C, T 857."

Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaskic, Case No. It-95-14-T3, Judgement (TC), 3 March 2000, paras. 418, 424:

"418. According to the Centre for Human Rights in Zenica, 180 of the existing 200 Muslim houses in Ahmici were burned during the attack ⁸⁶⁰ . The Commission on Human Rights made the same finding in its report dated 19 May 1993 ⁸⁶¹ . Prosecution exhibit P117 also showed that nearly all the Muslim houses had been torched, whereas all the Croat houses had been spared ⁸⁶² . The witnesses Bower ⁸⁶³ and Casim Ahmic ⁸⁶⁴ confirmed the information . The witness Nura Pezer stated, on this point, that the day before the attack, she had seen a Croat from the village, named Ivica Vidovic, who, in the presence of another man, was pointing out the Croat houses and the Muslim houses ⁸⁶⁵ . The British UNPROFOR battalion reported having seen houses burning in ?antici on 17 April ⁸⁶⁶ . According to the ECMM observer Morsink, practically all the Muslim houses in the villages of Ahmici, Nadioci , Pirici, Sivrino Selo, Gacice, Gomionica, Gromiljak and Rotilj had been burned ⁸⁶⁷ . He stated that the houses had all been set alight with petrol and oil ⁸⁶⁸ . Likewise, according to the witness Watters, the Muslim houses had been systematically burned in Nadioci, Ahmici and ?antici ⁸⁶⁹ . The witness Baggesen, ECMM observer, reported that "it was a whole area that was burning" ⁸⁷⁰ . The report of the Joint Busovaca Commission, dated 21 April, showed that the ICRC had made enquiries that afternoon in Ahmici and noted that all the Muslims situated in Ahmici-west had left and that 90% of the houses together with the area's mosque, had been destroyed ⁸⁷¹ . The report stated moreover that about 200 Muslim women and children were crowded into 3 houses in Novaci, and that half of them wished to be evacuated ⁸⁷² ."

"⁸⁶⁰ P242, "Report on inter-ethnic violence in Vitez, Busovaca and Zenica in April 1993", Annex N to ECMM H/S 720, 15 May 1993. Meeting with the Centre for Human Rights in Zenica, p. N-2.

⁸⁶¹ P184, p. 5, para. 20.

⁸⁶² - Witnesses Abdullah Ahmic, PT p. 3768; M, PT p. 4410; Elvir Ahmic, PT p. 3255-3256.

⁸⁶³ This witness, a member of the Prince of Wales Regiment in Bosnia Herzegovina (2nd British Battalion which succeeded the Cheshire Regiment), who remained in the area from April to November 1993, stated that some houses, where Croats lived, remained intact. PT p. 9361.

⁸⁶⁴ PT of 1 October 1997 p. 3136.

⁸⁶⁵ Witness Nura Pezer, PT pp. 3883-3884.

⁸⁶⁶ P242, "Report on inter-ethnic violence in Vitez, Busovaca and Zenica in April 1993", Annex N to ECMM H/S 720, 15 May 1993. Events reported by ECMM and UN, 13-30 April 1993, Annex R to ECMM H/S 720, 15 May 1993, p. R-3.

⁸⁶⁷ Witness Morsink, PT pp. 9900-9901.

⁸⁶⁸ Witness Morsink, PT pp. 9901-9902.

⁸⁶⁹ Witness Watters, PT pp. 3602-3605.

⁸⁷⁰ Witness Baggesen, PT of 22 August 1997 p. 1928.

⁸⁷¹ This information appears also in the report of the ECMM whose team accompanied the ICRC team. P242, "Report on inter-ethnic violence in Vitez, Busovaca and Zenica in April 1993", Annex N to ECMM H/S 720, 15 May 1993. Events reported by ECMM and UN, 13-30 April 1993, Annex R to ECMM H/S 720, 15 May 1993, p. R-7.

⁸⁷² P696: report of the Joint Busovaca Commission dated 21 April (witness Morsink), para. D."

"424. The soldiers also set fire to the stables and slaughtered the livestock ⁸⁸³ as the accused noted himself when he visited the site on 27 April ⁸⁸⁴."

"⁸⁸³ Witness Zec, PT pp. 4288-4289; M, PT pp. 4405-4407; Pjanic, PT pp. 4435-4436; Elvir Ahmic, PT p. 3253.

⁸⁸⁴ Witness Blaškic, PT pp. 19036-19037."

Trial of Franz Holstein and Twenty-Three Others, Case No. 56, Permanent Military Tribunal at Dijon, 3rd February 1947, United Nations War Crimes Commission. Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals. Volume VIII, 1949, p. 22-23:

"According to the evidence presented by the prosecution, the accused took part in combined operations against members of the French resistance movement: The operations were decided upon and planned at a conference held at Dijon under the auspices of General Hederich, Feldkommandant and " Befehlshaber Nord-Ost Frankreich " (G.O.C., North-East, France), in June, 1944. Six of the accused attended in their respective commanding capacities : Irmisch, Hippe, Major, Hulf, Kruger and Verfurt. They were to provide the troops and issue instructions, and all had to take personal part in the operations at the head of their units. The conference decided that the French resistance movement in the area was to be suppressed and annihilated, and that severe measures were to be taken against them and the population " in reprisals " for their struggle against the occupying authorities or assistance given in this respect. In the light of some of the evidence, such measures were to consist in executing on the spot every member of the resistance, captured with arms, pursuant to Hitler’s orders to kill all " terrorists " or " saboteurs "; in the burning down of three farms for every German soldier killed, and of one farm for every German soldier wounded. The events described by the Prosecution showed that, in carrying out the above instructions, the accused killed a large number of inhabitants, destroyed by fire many buildings in various localities, and pillaged property of the population."

P.2. Evidence that property was destroyed by shelling.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Prosecutor v. Mladen Naletilić and Vinko Martinović, Case No. IT-98-34-T, Judgement (TC), 31 March 2003, para. 586:

"586. The deliberate destruction of the houses in Sovici started on 18 April 1993 and continued until 23 April.¹⁴⁴⁸ In contrast to the shelling, the BH Muslim houses were now specifically targeted.¹⁴⁴⁹ Defence witness NN confirmed that BH Muslim houses were torched but denied that all houses were destroyed.¹⁴⁵⁰ A Report from the ECMM recounts that "during the fighting the HVO have systematically burn [sic] Muslim houses".¹⁴⁵¹ On 20 April 1993, the HVO was firing at Doljani.¹⁴⁵² The village was on fire and houses were burning.¹⁴⁵³ International observers visiting Doljani after the conflict reported that half of Doljani were destroyed.¹⁴⁵⁴ The hamlet of Kraj was destroyed by shelling.^1455"

"¹⁴⁴⁸ - Witness W, T 3180-3181; witness C testified that the houses were being set on fire on approximately 21 or 22 April 1993, witness C, T 862; witness X, T 3327; witness JJ, T 5004; exhibit PP 357 (confidential).
¹⁴⁴⁹ - Witness W testified "Can you tell the Chamber, please, what was the condition of the houses in Sovici when you passed through the village at that time? A. But I was passing by Croat houses all the time. Q. Well, what was the condition of those houses? A. Well, naturally like today. Nobody ever touched them, not a bullet nor anything else" witness W, T 3179-3181.
¹⁴⁵⁰ - Defence witness NN, T 12900, 12994.
¹⁴⁵¹ - Exhibit PP 344.
¹⁴⁵² - Exhibit PP 928, pp 74, 75,77.
¹⁴⁵³ - Witness RR, T 6441-6459, while being taken from Orlovac to Krcine, saw the village on fire.
¹⁴⁵⁴ - Witness JJ, T 5008; exhibit PP 357 (confidential).
¹⁴⁵⁵ - Witness C, T 857."

P.2.1. Evidence of the destruction of a part of a village by means of shelling.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgement (TC), 1 September 2004, paras. 614, 626:

"614. The Trial Chamber is satisfied that houses and shops belonging to Bosnian Muslims in the town of Celinac were shelled and set on fire by Bosnian Serb forces.¹⁵⁵⁶ Bosnian Muslim homes were also broken into and appliances and other valuables were taken away.¹⁵⁵⁷"

"¹⁵⁵⁶. Mehmet Talic, T. 24164; BT-90, T. 17072 (closed session); Radosava Dzombic, T. 23446, 23449; See, e.g . ex. P1991, "Morning news from Radio Banja Luka on 11 June 1992", concerning four bomb attacks being carried out against private shops in Celinac. The town of Celinac was visited by the Trial Chamber and the Parties during the site visit which took place in March 2004.

¹⁵⁵⁷. BT-90, T. 17101-17102 (closed session)."

"626. […] Following the expiration of the ultimatum, the Bosnian Muslim village of Hambarine was shelled by Bosnian Serb forces for the entire day.¹⁵⁹⁵ Houses were targeted indiscriminately. Tanks passed through the village and shelled the houses causing civilian casualties. Houses were looted and set on fire.¹⁵⁹⁶"

"¹⁵⁹⁵. Hambarine was visited by the Trial Chamber and the Parties during the site visit which took place in March 2004 .

¹⁵⁹⁶. Muharem Murselovic, T. 12589 -12590, 2700-2701; Ivo Atlija, T. 5556; BT-33, T. 12667 (closed session); Elvedin Nasic, T. 12720; BT-35, ex. P563, T. 6808-6810 (under seal); BT-33, T. 4032-4033 (closed session)."

P.3. Evidence that property was destroyed by explosives.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgement (TC), 1 September 2004, para. 624:

"624.[…] Many houses were destroyed during the night with explosives. The day following such destruction the rubble would be collected.¹⁵⁹⁰ A group of men marked the non-Serb houses that had to be destroyed. One of the members of the group claimed to act pursuant to orders of the Crisis Staff.¹⁵⁹¹"

"¹⁵⁹⁰. Nusret Sivac, T. 6624.

¹⁵⁹¹. Nusret Sivac, T. 6693-6694, 6755."

P.4. Evidence that property was destroyed by fighting.

P.4.1. Evidence of the destruction of houses caused by firing.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Prosecutor v. Enver Hadžihasanović and Amir Kubura, Case No. IT-01-47-T, Judgement (TC), 15 March 2006, paras. 1844 - 1845:

1844. Second, the Chamber finds that the 7th Brigade troops also caused damage when they arrived in Vareš on 4 November 1993. The Chamber first considers that shots fired by 7th Brigade soldiers caused damage to buildings and houses. Additionally, the Chamber notes that the UNPROFOR members who were in Vareš on 4 November 1993 noticed that the 7th Brigade soldiers shattered windows and broke down doors.4 Finally, the report of the OG Istok dated 10 November 1993 notes that 7th Brigade soldiers shattered shopfronts and windows in Vareš."

Prosecutor v. Mladen Naletilić and Vinko Martinović, Case No. IT-98-34-T, Judgement (TC), 31 March 2003, para. 586:

"586. The deliberate destruction of the houses in Sovici started on 18 April 1993 and continued until 23 April.¹⁴⁴⁸ In contrast to the shelling, the BH Muslim houses were now specifically targeted.¹⁴⁴⁹ Defence witness NN confirmed that BH Muslim houses were torched but denied that all houses were destroyed.¹⁴⁵⁰ A Report from the ECMM recounts that "during the fighting the HVO have systematically burn [sic] Muslim houses".¹⁴⁵¹ On 20 April 1993, the HVO was firing at Doljani.¹⁴⁵² The village was on fire and houses were burning.¹⁴⁵³ International observers visiting Doljani after the conflict reported that half of Doljani were destroyed.¹⁴⁵⁴ The hamlet of Kraj was destroyed by shelling.^1455"

"¹⁴⁴⁸ - Witness W, T 3180-3181; witness C testified that the houses were being set on fire on approximately 21 or 22 April 1993, witness C, T 862; witness X, T 3327; witness JJ, T 5004; exhibit PP 357 (confidential).
¹⁴⁴⁹ - Witness W testified "Can you tell the Chamber, please, what was the condition of the houses in Sovici when you passed through the village at that time? A. But I was passing by Croat houses all the time. Q. Well, what was the condition of those houses? A. Well, naturally like today. Nobody ever touched them, not a bullet nor anything else" witness W, T 3179-3181.
¹⁴⁵⁰ - Defence witness NN, T 12900, 12994.
¹⁴⁵¹ - Exhibit PP 344.
¹⁴⁵² - Exhibit PP 928, pp 74, 75,77.
¹⁴⁵³ - Witness RR, T 6441-6459, while being taken from Orlovac to Krcine, saw the village on fire.
¹⁴⁵⁴ - Witness JJ, T 5008; exhibit PP 357 (confidential).
¹⁴⁵⁵ - Witness C, T 857."

P.5. Evidence that property was pulled down.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Knut Dörmann, Elements of War Crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (2005), p. 83:

"The following conduct may, inter alia, constitute destruction: to set fire to property, to destroy, pull down, mutilate […]."

P.6. Evidence that property was mutilated.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Knut Dörmann, Elements of War Crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (2005), p. 83:

"The following conduct may, inter alia, constitute destruction: to set fire to property, to destroy, pull down, mutilate […]."

5.2. The perpetrator appropriated certain property.

Prosecutor v. Dario Kordić and Mario Čerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-T, Judgement (TC), 26 February 2001, para. 352:

"352. The essence of the offence [plunder or spoliation] is defined by the Celebici Trial Judgement as "all forms of unlawful appropriation of property in armed conflict for which individual criminal responsibility attaches under international law, including those acts traditionally described as "pillage".⁴⁷⁹ Such acts of appropriation include both widespread and systematised acts of dispossession and acquisition of property in violation of the rights of the owners and isolated acts of theft or plunder by individuals for their private gain. […]"

"⁴⁷⁹ Celebici Trial Judgement, para. 591."

Knut Dörmann, Elements of War Crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (2005), p. 83 and p. 92:

"The following conduct may, inter alia, constitute ‘appropriation’: to take, obtain, or withhold property, theft, requisition, plunder, spoliation […]. A definite transfer of title as to the property seized is not necessary (cf. post-Second World War trials)."

"Hence, it appears that the terms ‘plunder’, ‘spoilation’ and ‘exploitation’ may be used interchangeably with the term ‘appropriation’. ²³

"²³See alors P. Verri, Dictionnary of the International Law of Armed Conflict (ICRC, Geneva, 1988)."

B. Evidentiary comment:

There are no provisions in the Geneva Conventions that specifically define the concept of appropriation of property. An attempt to define it at the Rome Conference was later abandoned, as the delegates decided that it would be preferable to leave the specific meaning to be determined on a case-by-case basis. (K. D?rmann in R. S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court. Elements of Crimes and Rules of Procedure and Evidence p. 133).

According to Werle, "there is no substantive difference between appropriation and confiscation. Necessary for both appropriation and confiscation are the removal of something from the possession of an entitled person, for not an insignificant amount of time, and against that person’s will or without his or her agreement."(Werle, Principles of International Criminal Law, p. 334). "Appropriation" may be more or less interchangeable with the offence of plunder refered to in the ICTY jurisprudence. Furthermore, it is distinguished from pillage in that the property needs not be taken for personal use; it also covers the taking of property for military use, provided that the appropriation is extensive and not justified by military necessity. (K. D?rmann in R. S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court. Elements of Crimes and Rules of Procedure and Evidence, p. 133). However, it is important to read this alongside the requirement of Element 7 of article 8(2)(a)(iv) specifying that the appropriation must be "extensive", which excludes, for example, an isolated incident of pillage from this crime. (K. D?rmann in R.S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court. Elements of Crimes and Rules of Procedure and Evidence, p. 133).

5.2.1. Evidence of widespread and systematic acts of dispossession and acquisition.

P.7. Evidence of a policy of reprisal through pillage.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

F Holstein and Twenty Three Others, UNWCC, LRTWC, vol. VIII, p. 23-25:

"The conference decided that the French resistance movement in the area was to be suppressed and annihilated, and that severe measures were to be taken against them and the population " in reprisals " for their struggle against the occupying authorities or assistance given in this respect. In the light of some of the evidence, such measures were to consist in executing on the spot every member of the resistance, captured with arms, pursuant to Hitler’s orders to kill all " terrorists " or " saboteurs "; in the burning down of three farms for every German soldier killed, and of one farm for every German soldier wounded. The events described by the Prosecution showed that, in carrying out the above instructions, the accused killed a large number of inhabitants, destroyed by fire many buildings in various localities, and pillaged property of the population.[…] On 27 June, the place was thoroughly pillaged and twelve houses were set on fire and burnt to the ground. On 28^th June, at 1pm, the Germans left the locality. […] Eleven houses were set on fire and property of the inhabitants was looted. […] The village was also pillaged."

P.8. Evidence of a practice of appropriation of property following eviction.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Prosecutor v. Mladen Naletilić and Vinko Martinović, Case No. IT-98-34-T, Judgement (TC), 31 March 2003, paras. 619 – 622, 627, 630:

"619. Witness U (a BH Muslim) testified that, on 9 May 1993, HVO units not engaged in combat were involved in evicting people and taking property; ten HVO soldiers entered his apartment and, while allegedly looking for weapons, took away some gold jewellery, a computer and other valuables.¹⁵²⁰ On that same day, seven armed men evicted Witness WW, her family and all BH Muslims living in the same building from their apartments in the DUM area;¹⁵²¹ on that occasion, Vinko Martinovic ordered a soldier to drive away a car belonging to one of the neighbours of Witness WW.¹⁵²² "

"¹⁵²⁰. Witness U, T 2927-2928.

¹⁵²². Witness WW, T 7014-7021. When witness WW returned to her apartment around mid-June, she found it emptied of valuables, witness WW, T 7032. These testimonies are corroborated by witnesses participating in the attack on Mostar. Witness Falk Simang, a mercenary fighting in the KB, admitted that after the attack on Mostar KB soldiers drove BH Muslims out of their homes and took away all valuables they could carry, witness Falk Simang, T 3830. Witness Q, a Danish mercenary fighting with the Vinko [krobo ATG, described an instance when soldiers from his unit met at Mladen Naletilic headquarters and went to loot valuables in Muslim houses using civilian cars, witness Q, T 2375."

"620. Two reports by the Military Police in Mostar recount that, on 13 June 1993, Vinko Martinovic with 40 armed soldiers was expelling BH Muslims from their apartments in the DUM area on Mladen Naletilic’s orders. During these expulsions, apartments were robbed; the looting did not stop even after the police had inquired into the situation.¹⁵²³ Witness GG was dispossessed of his car and other belongings by six HVO soldiers between the end of May and middle-June 1993 in the DUM area.¹⁵²⁴ Exhibits PP 456.4 and PP 458.1 show protests from the ABiH 4th Corps Commander Arif Pacalic for large evictions of civilians from the DUM area on 13 and 14 June 1993; the first of these documents also reports robbery from ousted people.¹⁵²⁵ Witness P testified that in the days before 14 June 1993 violent evictions of BH Muslim residents in Mostar involved robbery of private property.¹⁵²⁶ A memorandum by an international observer states that evictions of BH Muslims on 12 and 13 June 1993 took place in upper middle-class neighbourhoods where the most desirable properties were to be found. In particular, on 13 June 1993 around 5 p.m., thirty soldiers evicted BH Muslims from their apartments, and proceeded to take away the name-plates on the doors.¹⁵²⁷ An ECMM report of 14 June 1993 also corroborates these findings, describing expulsions and dispossession of apartments in the DUM and Vatikana areas of Mostar.¹⁵²⁸"

"621. Between the end of July and 17 September 1993, Witness OO was repeatedly forced by the Vinko [krobo ATG, under the overall authority of Vinko Martinovic, to carry looted household appliances in areas of Mostar far away from the combat zones of the Bulevar.¹⁵²⁹ Witness F testified that in the period between July 1993 and March 1994 he was once forced to loot apartments in an area under the responsibility of Vinko Martinovic, loading the booty on trucks that soldiers would drive away. Vinko Martinovic’s soldiers were there and he recognised Zubac, a subordinate of Martinovic, acting as commander.¹⁵³⁰ According to witness II, Vinko Martinovic was never present during the plunder and it was his subordinates, who chose the prisoners.¹⁵³¹

622. Witness Sulejman Hadisalihovic, after being captured by the HVO on 25 June 1993,¹⁵³² was forced by HVO soldiers to loot apartments in Mostar together with other prisoners, mostly at night.¹⁵³³ This testimony is consistent with the statement of witness AC that Baja and other men were taking property away at night from BH Muslim apartments.¹⁵³⁴ Witness F was forced to loot apartments after June 1993, loading the booty on trucks that soldiers would drive away.¹⁵³⁵ Witness II was frequently ordered by soldiers from the Vinko [krobo ATG to loot abandoned apartments between the end of July and December 1993.¹⁵³⁶ Witness AB testified that he was forced to loot apartments many times from mid-August 1993 onwards;¹⁵³⁷ in one of these instances, Vinko Martinovic was present and, while not explicitly ordering the looting, did nothing to prevent or stop it.^1538"

"¹⁵²³. Exhibits PP 456.1, PP 456.2. The latter document explicitly defines the course of conduct by Vinko Martinovic as "pillage".

¹⁵²⁴. Witness GG, T 4757 (confidential).

¹⁵²⁵. Exhibits PP 456.4, PP 458.1.

¹⁵²⁶. Witness P, T 2280-2281 (confidential).

¹⁵²⁷. Exhibit PP 456.

¹⁵²⁸. Exhibit PP 456.3."

¹⁵²⁹. Witness OO, T 5943.

¹⁵³⁰. Witness F, T 1106-1108.

¹⁵³¹. Witness II, T 4962.

¹⁵³². Witness Sulejman Had`isalihovic, T 1222.

¹⁵³². Witness Sulejman Had`isalihovic, T 1222.

¹⁵³³. Witness Sulejman Hadisalihovic, T 1247.

¹⁵³⁴. Witness AC, T 7912.

¹⁵³⁵. Witness F, T 1106.

¹⁵³⁶. Witness II, T 4962.

¹⁵³⁷. Witness AB, T 7867. The Prosecution Final Brief, p 121, refers instead to witness ZZ.

¹⁵³⁸. Witness AB, T 7880-7881."

"627. With regard to the incidents occurring in the DUM area on 13 June 1993, it has been established that a large-scale operation of plunder, in connection with evictions, was carried out by soldiers acting under the supervision of Vinko Martinovic. Vinko Martinovic ordered the modalities of the evictions; such modalities included plunder of BH Muslim property in the neighbourhood. He organised his men during this operation and took no action even after police had inquired about the events.¹⁵⁴⁸ Vinko Martinovic is therefore responsible under Articles 3(e) and 7(1) of the Statute."

"¹⁵⁴⁸. Exhibit PP 456.1."

"630. Plunder was carried out by HVO soldiers directly¹⁵⁵⁷ or forcing prisoners to do it for them.¹⁵⁵⁸ In this respect, Mladen Naletilic was giving specific orders as to the modalities of the operations.¹⁵⁵⁹"

"¹⁵⁵⁷. Witness U, T 2927-2928; witness GG, T 4756.

¹⁵⁵⁸. Witness Sulejman Hadzisalihovic, T 1246; Witness II, T 4962; witness CC, T 4423-4426.

¹⁵⁵⁹. Exhibits PP 456.1, and PP 456.2. These exhibits are reports by two different officials at the Command of the HVO 1st Military Police Battalion in Mostar, alleging that soldiers participating in the operation were "Tuta’s men" acting on "Tuta’s orders." See also witness AC, T 7907-7911, stating that his unit, the Benko Penavic ATG under the authority of Mladen Naletilic, was often divided into groups, one of which had the task to ethnically cleanse a portion of Mostar. Specific instructions were given that plunder of Muslim property was part and parcel of these cleansing operations."

P.9. Evidence of widespread and systematic plunders carried out on a discriminatory basis.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgement (TC), 1 September 2004, para. 600:

"600. The Trial Chamber is satisfied that in the period relevant to the Indictment, Bosnian Serb forces shelled towns and villages predominantly inhabited by Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats, causing extensive damage to houses and business premises. After the shelling, the Bosnian Serb forces entered the towns and villages, looting and setting on fire apartments, houses and business premises belonging to Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats. The Trial Chamber finds that the purpose of such attacks was to create terror, destroy these properties, cities, towns and villages and prompt non-Serbs to abandon their houses, viallges or towns and leave permanently."

Prosecutor v. Mladen Naletilić and Vinko Martinović, Case No. IT-98-34-T, Judgement (TC), 31 March 2003, para. 701:

"701. The Chamber has already found that plunder was committed in Mostar after the attack of 9 May 1993 and that it formed part of a widespread and systematic attack on the BH Muslim population. Mladen Naletilić was found responsibly for plunder in Mostar as a violation of the laws and customs of war with command responsibility. The plunder was carried out on a discriminatory basis as only the property of BH Muslims was targeted. Mladen Naletilic knew that his subordinates carried out the plunder with the intent to discriminate. The Chamber is satisfied that Mladen Naletilic is responsible for persecution under Article 7(3) of the Statute."

P.10. Evidence of the appropriation of property by military forces.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgement (TC), 1 September 2004, paras. 608, 621:

"608.[…] At the end of May 1992, men wearing army uniforms with an insignia of a white eagle looted a couple of houses in the village of Arapusa.¹⁵⁴⁰"

"¹⁵⁴⁰. BT-55, T. 17548."

"621. The Trial Chamber is satisfied that Bosnian Serb attacks upon Pudin Han, Prhovo, and Crljeni were also accompanied with the looting of valuables, including electronic devices, vehicles, furniture, money and jewelry.¹⁵⁷⁷ During the looting, the perpetrators would intentionally damage the houses by tearing drapes and breaking the windows.¹⁵⁷⁸ Bosnian Serb soldiers, Bosnian Serb civilians and the Bosnian Serb police participated in the looting.¹⁵⁷⁹ The looting of houses in the municipality of Kljuc "were not isolated acts. These were acts by obedients who plundered, and making a certain gain they distributed the booty to the leaders [...] There [wasn’t] a house from which they didn't steal something ranging from furniture [to] cars."¹⁵⁸⁰ No measures were taken to prevent the looting.¹⁵⁸¹"

"¹⁵⁷⁷. Ajiz Becic, ex. P549, 92bis statement, 02109337-02109338; Bajro Hadzic, ex. P552, 92bis statement , 00521142; Samir Dedic, T. 10440-10442; BT-26, T. 9186 (closed session).

¹⁵⁷⁸. Ajiz Becic, ex. P549, 92bis statement, 02109338.

¹⁵⁷⁹. Nisvet Ticevic, T. 10752-10754 ; See, e.g., ex. P1046, "Report of Public Security Station of Kljuc on the crimes committed in the municipality from the outbreak of the armed uprising on 27 May 1992." It provides: "There has lately been widespread looting of Muslim houses" and "Information collected through intelligence work reveals that the perpetrators were in uniform, that is, they were military persons outside the authority of the SJB. However, because of wartime conditions, military security organs seldom disclose the identity of perpetrators, and punish such acts by sending them to the first front line. Such crimes are reported to the station, which simply does not know how to deal with them."

¹⁵⁸⁰. Muhamed Filipovic, T. 9537.

¹⁵⁸¹. Nisvet Ticevic, T. 10756; ex . P660, "Report from the 1st KK Command to the Serbian Republic of BiH Army Main Staff dated 4 June 1992", signed for General Momir Talic, which provides: " The Corps Command is taking all available measures to prevent various forms of crime , especially the looting of material goods."

P.10.1. Evidence that military forces came to a village in trucks and tractors and carried away property belonging to the civilians.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Prosecutor v. Dario Kordić and Mario Čerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Judgement (AC), 17 December 2004, paras. 559, 576:

"559. The Trial Chamber relied on the testimony of Witness TW01 (based on transcripts from the Blaskic trial), which stated that the HVO "came in trucks, on tractors, and they plundered the lower part of the village, taking away everything they could at the time"⁷⁷⁷, later being aided by civilians "who carried, on their backs and wheelbarrows, valuable things."⁷⁷⁸

"⁷⁷⁷.Blaskic,T.9270.

⁷⁷⁸. Blaskic, T. 9270"

"576. The Trial Chamber relied on Witness TW12⁸¹⁹ who testified that he: "saw cars and buses being taken away or trucks, if somebody had them. [He] saw looting and they just took all those things that they could take away right now and right there. And they were talking to each other saying, ‘Take this now and leave the rest here. We will come back later and take the other stuff.’ And they took the stuff to Brnjaci."⁸²⁰"

"⁸¹⁹. Based on transcripts from the Blaskic trial.

⁸²⁰. Blaskic, T. 9532."

P.11. Evidence of an organized seizure of property undertaken within the framework of a systematic economic exploitation of occupied territory.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Prosecutor v. Zejnil Delalic, Zdravko Mucic, Hazim Delic and Esad Landžo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Judgement (TC), 16 November 1998, para. 590:

"590. In this connection, it is to be observed that the prohibition against the unjustified appropriation of public and private enemy property is general in scope, and extends both to acts of looting committed by individual soldiers for their private gain, and to the organized seizure of property undertaken within the framework of a systematic economic exploitation of occupied territory. […]"

P.12. Evidence of abusive and illegal requisitions of private property.

P.12.1. Evidence of compelling the supply of horses and vehicles.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

P Rust, UNWCC, LRTWC, vol IX, p. 70 and 74:

"It was alleged by the Prosecution that in September, 1944, a local inhabitant, Marcel Schmitt, was ordered and forced by the accused to supply horses and vehicles with which he had to carry German ammunition and that he was compelled to repair German military bicycles, motor-cycles and electrical installations. It was also alleged that several other French civilians had been subjected to the same treatment, and that the acts of requisitioning were illegally effected in that no receipts were delivered to the owners of the horses and vehicles. […] The offence for which the accused was found guilty eventually amounted to a case of "illegal" requisitioning, that of violating the requirements according to which, unless payment is made "in ready money", a receipt is to be given in respect of the objects requisitioned."

B. Evidentiary comment:

The accused was tried under article 221 of the French Penal Code of Military Justice and art. 2(8) of the Ordinance of 1944 for the prosecution of war criminals giving effect to art. 52 of the Hague Regulations of 1907. He was found guilty of abusive and illegal requisitioning of French property, an instance of pillage in time of war.

P.13. Evidence of seizing/taking possession of public property.

P.13.1. Evidence of taking possession of means of production.

P.13.2. Evidence of seizure of property.

P.13.3. Evidence of removal of machinery.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Flick Trial, LRTWC, UNWCC, vol. IX, p.42:

"The conclusion follows that, wherever the occupying power acts or holds itself out as owner of the public property owned by the occupied country, Article 55 [of the Hague Regulation] is violated. The same applies if the occupying power or its agents, who took possession of public buildings or factories or plants, assert ownership, remove equipment or machinery, and ship it to their own country, or make any other use of the property which is incompatible with usufruct. The only exception to the public property rule that the occupying power, or its agents, is limited by the rules of usufruct is the right to ‘take possession of’ certain types of public property under Article 53⁽¹⁾. But the exception applied only with respect t to certain named properties and ‘all moveable property belonging to the State which may be used for military operations’, and thus is not applicable to such properties as means of production".

⁽¹⁾Artlce 53 (paragraph 1): "Any army of occupation can only take possession of cash, funds and realisable securities which are strictly the property of the State, depots of armes, means of transport, stores and supplies, and, generally, all moveable property belonging to the State which may be used for military operations".

Krupp Trial, UNWCC, LRTWC, Vol X, p. 73:

"From a careful study of the credible evidence we conclude there was no justification under the Hague Regulations for the seizure of the Elmag property and the removal of machinery to Germany.⁽³⁾ […] Of the taking of machines from the Als-Thim Factory, ⁽⁵⁾ the Tribunal also ruled: "We conclude from the credible evidence that the removal and detention of these machines was clear violation of Article 46 of the Hague Regulations."

"⁽³⁾See pp.87-8

⁽⁵⁾ See pp. 88-9."

P.14. Evidence of forced transfers of private property.

P.14.1. Evidence of documents transferring of titles of property being signed under force.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgement (TC), 1 September 2004, paras. 605, 613:

"605. The Trial Chamber is further satisfied that, during the period relevant to the Indictment, there were many incidents in Banja Luka of non-Serbs being forced to either sign over their property ¹⁵²⁴ or exchange their property for property in Croatia.¹⁵²⁵ An agency was set up by the authorities of Banja Luka specifically to facilitate these exchanges.¹⁵²⁶ The SDS publicly announced that non-Serb owned shops and businesses would be transferred to returning Bosnian Serb soldiers as a reward.¹⁵²⁷ Bosnian Serb families moved into apartments belonging to non-Serbs who had left Banja Luka.¹⁵²⁸ Some people applied to exchange their apartments for apartments in Zagreb or Rijeka.¹⁵²⁹ In one example, a non-Serb was forced to exchange his house for just 100 German marks.¹⁵³⁰"

"¹⁵²⁴. BT-20, T. 5255 (closed session ).

¹⁵²⁵. Muharem Krzic, T. 1484-1485 .

¹⁵²⁶. Muharem Krzic, T. 1484-1485 .

¹⁵²⁷. Muharem Krzic, T. 1483; BT- 22, T. 4436.

¹⁵²⁸. BT-20, T. 5241 (closed session); ex. P763 (under seal).

¹⁵²⁹. BT-9, T. 3445 (closed session ).

¹⁵³⁰. BT-13, T. 4707-08 (closed session )."

"613. Non-Serbs were forced to hand over their property, either by exchanging it with Bosnian Serbs who were coming to Bosanski Petrovac or by leaving it to the SerBiH.¹⁵⁵² In fact, actual exchanges seldom took place: non-Serbs transferred their property in exchange for nothing.¹⁵⁵³ However, some families that left for Bihac acquired Bosnian Serb property in exchange.¹⁵⁵⁴ The Trial Chamber is not satisfied that documents showing the sale of property belonging to non-Serbs are reliable, as the evidence shows that such transfers were always occasioned by force.¹⁵⁵⁵"

"¹⁵⁵². Ahmet Hidic, T. 16277-16283 ; Midho Druzic, T. 16805-16812.; ex. P1844, "Decision of the Petrovac Municipal Assembly", dated 3 August 1992, providing that for citizens of Muslim nationality "the commission will establish who can leave the Petrovac Municipality and the condition will be for them to exchange property or give it to the state, that is, to the Serbian Municipality of Petrovac."

¹⁵⁵³. Ahmet Hidic, T. 16277-16283 .

¹⁵⁵⁴. Ahmet Hidic, T. 16347. See , e.g., ex. P1869, "Crisis Staff minutes of 2 June 1992", which provide: "It has been decided that all Muslims and Croats, who so wish, be enabled to evacuated from the territory of Autonomous Region Krajina, but only under the condition that the Serbs outside the Serbian autonomous regions also be allowed to evacuate to the territory of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina that is the Autonomous Region Krajina. In this way, the organised exchange of population would be carried out, that is its evacuation from one part of the former Socialist Republic of Bosnia to the other […]".

¹⁵⁵⁵. Ex. P1846, "Document containing a number of contracts concerning the transfer of movable and immovable property belonging to Muslim citizens of Petrovac to the Petrovac Municipal Assembly"; Ahmet Hidic, T. 16277-16283."

5.2.2. Evidence of acts of theft by individuals for their private gain.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Prosecutor v. Zejnil Delalic, Zdravko Mucic, Hazim Delic and Esad Landžo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Judgement (TC), 16 November 1998, para. 590:

"590. In this connection, it is to be observed that the prohibition against the unjustified appropriation of public and private enemy property is general in scope, and extends both to acts of looting committed by individual soldiers for their private gain, and to the organized seizure of property undertaken within the framework of a systematic economic exploitation of occupied territory. Contrary to the submissions of the Defence, the fact that it was acts of the latter category which were made the subject of prosecutions before the International Military Tribunal at Nürnberg and in the subsequent proceedings before the Nürnberg Military Tribunals does not demonstrate the absence of individual criminal liability under international law for individual acts of pillage committed by perpetrators motivated by personal greed. In contrast, when seen in a historical perspective, it is clear that the prohibition against pillage was directed precisely against violations of the latter kind. […]"

P.15. Evidence of stealing.

P.15.1. Evidence of stealing from detainees.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Prosecutor v. Goran Jelisić, Case No. IT-95-10-T, Judgement (TC), 14 December 1999, para. 49:

"49. The factual basis attached to the guilty plea indicates that the accused stole money, watches, jewellery and other valuables from the detainees upon their arrival at Luka camp by threatening those who did not hand over all their possessions with death. The accused was sometimes accompanied. The Trial Chamber holds that these elements are sufficient to confirm the guilt of the accused on the charge of plunder."

P.15.2. Evidence of stealing from private individuals.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgement (TC), 1 September 2004, paras. 610, 612:

"610. The villages of Blagaj Japra and Blagaj Japra were shelled in May 1992. After the shelling, military tanks carrying flags with the symbol of the SerBiH entered the villages.¹⁵⁴³ Bosnian Serb soldiers took valuables and money from the villagers of Blagaj Rijeka and Blagaj Japra.¹⁵⁴⁴ Houses in the village of Blagaj Rijeka were set on fire.¹⁵⁴⁵"

"¹⁵⁴³. BT-49, T. 14223 (closed session ); BT-86, ex. P1639, 92bis statement, 00943011 (under seal).

¹⁵⁴⁴. BT-82, T. 13978; BT-49, T. 14229, 14237 (closed session); BT-50, ex. P1641, 92bis statement, 00672858 (under seal); BT-87, ex. P1643, 92bis statement, 00942600 (under seal).

¹⁵⁴⁵. BT-86, ex. P1639, 92bis statement, 00943012 (under seal)."

"612. In June 1992, Bosnian Muslim shops and business premises in the town of Bosanski Petrovac and the surrounding area were destroyed by Bosnian Serb forces.¹⁵⁴⁹ Organised groups looted Bosnian Muslim property, including cars, money and other valuables.¹⁵⁵⁰ On occasion, when Bosnian Muslims refused to hand over their money, a family member would be killed or a child abducted. The municipal Crisis Staff ordered the arrest of the men perpetrating these acts on 26 May 1992.¹⁵⁵¹"

"¹⁵⁴⁹. Ahmet Hidic, T. 16251-16254 . See, e.g., ex. P186, "Report prepared the Service for General Administration , Social Services, Information and Professional Services in 1997", recording the total amount of destruction in Bosanski Petrovac during the war.

¹⁵⁵⁰. Ahmet Hidic, T. 16251-16254 .

¹⁵⁵¹. Jovo Radojko, T. 20111-20112 ."

Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaskic, Case No. It-95-14-T3, Judgement (TC), 3 March 2000, para. 418:

"418. […] Several Croatian soldiers were also alleged to have stolen money from private individuals. One member of the Dzokeri was alleged to have seized DM 2000 and jewels belonging to Elvir Ahmic ⁸⁸⁵. Two HVO soldiers were alleged to have taken money from Haris Hrnjic’s wallet after he had surrendered ⁸⁸⁶. It was also alleged that DM 400 were taken from the body of Alija Ahmic ⁸⁸⁷. The witness Casim Ahmic⁸⁸⁸ also accused a group of five Croatian soldiers of stealing DM 300-400. The victims of these thefts were always Muslim. Finally, the witness Akhavan reported seeing HVO soldiers looting the houses that were still intact in Ahmici when he visited the village on 1 May 1993 ⁸⁸⁹.

"⁸⁸⁵ Witness Elvir Ahmic, PT p. 3263.

⁸⁸⁶ Witness Haris Hrnjic, PT p. 4010-4011.

⁸⁸⁷ Witness Abdullah Ahmic, PT p. 3759.

⁸⁸⁸ PT p. 3142.

⁸⁸⁹ Witness Akhavan, PT pp. 5286-5287."

"⁸⁸⁹ Witness Akhavan, PT pp. 5286-5287."

P.16. Evidence of theft by civilians.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Trial of Alois and Anna Bommer and Their Daugthers, UNWCC, LRTWC, vol. IX, p. 63-64:

"In the case of Alois and Anna Bommer there was no use of violence whatever, but, by virtue of the foregoing provision of the Ordinance of 28^th August, 1944, the mere fact if their having removed French property from France to Germany was sufficient to fall within the notion of pillage as extended by the said Ordinance. It should be emphasized that, while likening such removal to pillage, the Ordinance did not restrict its definition its definition to military personnel, but made it applicable to any perpetrator of the offence, including civilians […] [T]he main point in their trial is that relating to theft as a war crime, technically distinct from pillage but likened to it an emerging as one of its varities in the laws and customs of war as understood by one nation. According to Article 47 of the Hague Regulations of 1907 "pillage is expressly forbidden". Violations of this rule, at any rate since the findings of the 1919 Commission on Responsibilities, have been regarded as war crimes entailing procedure and punishment devised for war criminals. […]."

B. Evidentiary comment:

In this case the accused were tried and convicted under art. 379 and art. 460 the French Penal Code, the offenses of theft and receiving stolen goods, respectively. These were treated as war crimes.

P.17. Necessary: Evidence that the value of the property taken involved grave consequences for the victim.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Prosecutor v. Zejnil Delalic, Zdravko Mucic, Hazim Delic and Esad Landžo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Judgement (TC), 16 November 1998, para. 1154:

"1154. However, even when considered in the light most favourable to the Prosecution, the evidence before the Trial Chamber fails to demonstrate that any property taken from the detainees in the Celebici prison-camp was of sufficient monetary value for its unlawful appropriation to involve grave consequences for the victims."