is taken or appropriated and the manner of the taking or the appropriation.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Clark v. State. “Under the statute, the phrase ‘regardless of the manner in which the property is taken’ is a catch-all phrase rendering our theft by taking statute broad enough to encompass any other of the myriad and even yet-to-be-concocted schemes for depriving people of their property.” (Punctuation omitted.) Travis v. State. Thus, it is clear that the jury, as well as the trial court, saw Frost’s deposit of the check belonging to APEC as an unlawful taking, rather than appropriation, of McGee’s property. The broadness of the statute authorizes the view that Frost’s deposit of McGee’s check into his own account constituted the taking of his property. Mullen v. State (<HOLDING>). More importantly, there was no variance at
holding a party to be an initial transferee because she was given legal title to the funds holding that theft by taking conviction was supported by evidence of unlawful taking rather than unlawful appropriation of funds where defendant who was given an electronic banking card encoded with the account number of another customer withdrew funds from bank account knowing that she was obtaining funds which did not belong to her and which she had no right to receive holding that defendant violated section 4b when she misappropriated pool participant funds by soliciting funds for trading and then trading only a small percentage of those funds while disbursing the rest of the funds to investors herself and her family holding that bank had right to set off funds in a customers account against debt that the bank customer had incurred as a surety or guarantor holding garnishee bank liable for releasing funds when garnishee knew that funds in garnished account were held in trust for another and did not belong to debtor