5. The appropriation was without the consent of the owner.

P.11. Evidence that the owner did not give his or her genuine consent to the appropriation.

P.11.1. Evidence that consent was given under duress, intimidation or any other form of coercion or fraudulently obtained.

P.12. Not required: evidence of the use of force or violence.

5. The appropriation was without the consent of the owner.

P.11. Evidence that the owner did not give his or her genuine consent to the appropriation.

P.11.1. Evidence that consent was given under duress, intimidation or any other form of coercion or fraudulently obtained.

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, jewelry 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 Trial Chamber holds that these elements are sufficient to confirm the guilt of the accused on the charge of plunder."

P.12. Not required: evidence of the use of force or violence.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Prosecutor v. Zejnil Delalic et al., Case No. IT-96-21-T, Judgement (TC), 16 November 1998, para. 591, footnote. 605:

605. See e.g. The Krupp Trial, in which it was held that acts of plunder had been committed "through changes of corporate property, contractual transfer of property rights, and the like. It is the results that count and though the results in the latter case were achieved through "contracts" imposed on others, the illegal results, namely, the deprivation of property, was achieved, just as though materials had been physically shipped to Germany", (Vol. IX TWC, p. 1347).