Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §13.1.6.pr

Non-Liability of Theft Accomplices to the Condictio

Passage 2054 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

Ulpian explains that a person who merely provides aid and counsel for a theft may be liable for the action of theft (actio furti) but is not liable under the condictio for the return of the stolen property.

[ULPIANUS libro trigensimo octauo ad edictum. ] §13.1.6.prProinde etsi ope consilio alicuius furtum factum sit, condictione non tenebitur, etsi furti tenetur.

[ULPIANUS, in his thirty-eighth book on the Edict.] Therefore, even if a theft has been committed with the aid and counsel of someone, that person will not be liable under the condictio, even though he is liable for theft.

Notes

13.1.6.prope consilio — A standard legal phrase in Roman law referring to providing assistance (ops) and planning/counsel (consilium), i.e., aiding and abetting. Since the previous section (13.1.5.pr) established that only the actual perpetrator or their heir is liable under the condictio, it logically follows (Proinde) that an accomplice who did not directly take possession is not liable under this action.
13.1.6.prfurti tenetur — The genitive furti indicates the charge or ground of liability with the passive verb teneor. It shows that even an accomplice who does not possess the stolen property is still liable to the penal action of theft (actio furti).

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §13.1.6.pr. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:13.1.6.pr

Please note the AI-draft status of the translation and the date accessed.

Translation, notes and summary are AI-generated drafts, revised through reader feedback.