The problem arises when the item taken is a vehicle, in the form of a carjacking, for instance. So, for example, the perpetrator opens the door of the car, grabs the victim, threatens them, hauls them out of the car, shoves them to the ground, and then takes off with their $80,000 Kona—for argument's sake. If the car is dumped by the perpetrator, as can often happen, and therefore can be returned at some point to the victim, then section 219(2), the intent to permanently deprive, cannot be satisfied, and the item can be returned to the owner in the same or very similar condition, so the owner is not likely to be permanently deprived of the vehicle or the interest in that vehicle.