##Some say that dina d'malchusa dina applies to government legislation, but not to rulings of the secular court. <ref>Sema 369:21 trying to resolve a contradiction between Rama C.M. 369:8 where he says dina d'malchusa applies across the board and 369:11 where he limits it to things which are beneficial for the king or for the good of the people, but not about going to secular court (as this would abolish Jewish law)</ref>
##Some say that dina d'malchusa dina applies to government legislation and rulings of the secular court whenever they are for the benefit of society, but personal matters are not under the jurisdiction of dina d'malchusa.<ref>Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe C.M. 2:62) quotes the Sema's explanation and disagrees discussing bankruptcy laws</ref>
#Some say that it doesn't apply to Israel.<ref>Ran Nedarim 28a s.v. Bamoches writes that Dina Dmalchuta is based on the fact that the king owns the land and everyone has to abide by his law. However, in Israel where Hashem gave the land to the Jewish people, there is no Dina Dmalchuta. This is quoted in Darkei Moshe CM 369:3 and Gra 369:35. Emek Hamishpat 1:31:18 writes that in his opinion we follow the Ran.</ref>#Dina D'
malchuta is ineffective in causing an Asmachta to be binding.<ref>Emek Hamishpat 1:31:18 citing Maharsham in Mishpat Shalom 207:15</ref>#Dina Dmalchuta generally doesn't apply when there is an interaction between two Jews. However, if it is a very reasonable law for the benefit of society it is binding.<ref>Even Shoham 111:5 applies the following sources to explain why copyright laws are halachically binding. Shach 356:10 writes that a local practice is binding for two Jews because it is understood that the contract was made with such assumptions. Kesot 259:3 writes that for a proper practice it is binding upon Jews to go beyond the law. Chatom Sofer CM 44 adds that any law for the benefits of the industry workers is binding. </ref>
==Stealing from the Government==