In societies where private property is a cultural feature there is usually a legal prohibition against taking the private property of someone else without their consent. This is usually called "theft". Different societies have different defintions of theft which makes it a bit difficult to try and work out whether an act of theft can be moral. In fact it could be a stinking big red herring to try and work out if theft can be moral if we're using legal concepts to try and decide the question. The law isn't so much about morality as practicality. The primary concern of a court is this - is the defendant guilty? There's usually no examination of the morality of an alleged act or series of acts. The search is on for admissible evidence which will allow the court to draw the conclusion that the defendant did, beyond a reasonable doubt, in fact carry out those actions which are alleged in the indictment. If the actions can't be excused by a general or specific defence then the defendant will be found guilty. The court can then consider the circumstances of the defendant's actions (among other things) in deciding on penalty. There is no examination of morality. So in a sense the crime of theft falls outside the "is it moral" discussion if the discussion is only grounded on whether or not the crime of theft was committed. So it's probably necessary to look at attendant circumstances to decide of a series of actions which would be described by a court as a crime can in fact be moral when examined outside of the legal framework. Can taking another person's property without their permission ever be moral. I say it can be moral.