Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct thought to be inherently wrong by nature, independently of regulations governing the conduct. It is distinguished from "malum prohibitum", which is wrong only because it is prohibited. For example, murder is generally agreed to be wrong regardless whether a law exists where the conduct occurs, and is thus recognizably malum in se, whereas driving on the right side of the dividing line in a no-passing zone is wrong in England, only because the law of that country requires cars to drive on the left of the dividing line (but in the United States the rule is reversed, not because of moral differences between the people, but merely because a different rule has been established). Crimes as larceny, rape and murder are considered malum in se. This concept was used to develop the various common law crimes. This page lists direct English translations of common Latin phrases, such as veni vidi vici and et cetera. ... Malum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita, literal translation: wrong because prohibited) is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to crimes made so by statute, as opposed to crimes based on English common law and obvious violations of societys standards which are defined as malum in se. ... In the United States, larceny is a common law crime involving stealing. ... This article concerns the common-law legal system, as contrasted with the civil law legal system; for other meanings of the term, within the field of law, see common law (disambiguation). ...
Malum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita, literal translation: "wrong because prohibited") is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to crimes made so by statute, as opposed to crimes based on English common law and obvious violations of society's standards which are defined as malum in se.
An offense that is malum prohibitum, for example, may not appear on the face to directly violate moral standards: an example is the law against insider trading, where the simple act of sharing information is clearly not wrong in itself, but only because of its context in a larger framework of regulated trading.
The distinction between malum in se and malum prohibitum offenses is best characterized as follows: a malum in se offense is "naturally evil as adjudged by the sense of a civilized community," whereas a malum prohibitum offense is wrong only because a statute makes it so.