Spouses’ Money Is Not Automatically Joint… What If One of Them Takes the Other’s Money?

Al-Taj News – Lina Al-Nasser.

Legal expert Fadi Bawaneh said that the law defines theft as taking another person’s property without their consent, explaining that the Penal Code, in Article 425, paragraph (A), exempts perpetrators of theft and breach of trust offenses from punishment if they occur between ascendants and descendants or between either spouse.

Bawaneh explained in his interview with “Al-Taj News” on Monday that this exemption applies only to criminal punishment, meaning imprisonment, and does not mean that the money has become the husband’s property, stressing that the financial estate of each spouse does not merge merely because of the marital relationship.

Bawaneh explained that the affected husband or wife may demand the return of the stolen money if it is cash, or its value if it cannot be returned in kind, explaining that if a phone is stolen and sold, its value can be claimed.

He pointed out that there is an exception in the article involving repetition of the act within three years, in which case the perpetrator is punished with the penalty prescribed by law, reduced by two-thirds. He explained that if the sentence were six months, it would be reduced by four months to become two months of imprisonment.

Regarding evidence, Bawaneh said that it includes withdrawal and deposit receipts, invoices, messages and conversations containing admissions, in addition to audio and video recordings, such as camera footage, provided that they are obtained legally and legitimately.

He noted that the presence of money inside the marital home does not necessarily mean that it has become joint property, explaining that the wife has her independent property and the husband has his independent property, and that the existence of the marital relationship does not mean that either has the right to take the other’s money without permission.

He affirmed that the affected husband or wife may demand the return of the money through a civil lawsuit, or compensation for the damage suffered.

In the context of explaining the effect of the exemption from punishment, Bawaneh pointed to an example of a judgment issued in one case in which a husband was sentenced to three years in prison for stealing from his wife, with the sentence suspended, explaining that the exemption does not mean an acquittal, because an acquittal means that there is no evidence, nor does it mean the absence of liability because the act does not constitute an offense warranting punishment.

He explained that in this case, the court rules that an offense has been committed, while suspending the execution of the sentence because the person is one of the spouses, and no criminal punishment is carried out against him, noting that the affected party may, based on the judgment, proceed to claim their rights in a civil case to recover the money.

He added that if returning the money is impossible, such as when gold is stolen and sold, the value of the stolen items can be assessed and claimed as compensation in a civil case, not a criminal case, similar to making a claim over a “check” or “promissory note.”

Regarding the term “exemption from punishment” stated in Article 425, Bawaneh told “Al-Taj” that it raises an issue, explaining that saying there is no theft between spouses if one of them takes the other’s money and sells it could open the door to repetition of such acts as long as they do not result in punishment.