View Single Post
Old 10-11-2012, 10:54 PM   #76
Andrew H.
Grand Master of Flowers
Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 2,201
Karma: 8389072
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Naptown
Device: Kindle PW, Kindle 3 (aka Keyboard), iPhone, iPad 3 (not for reading)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apache View Post
In the US, if you buy stolen merchandise and did not pay a fair market price, you can be charged with buying stolen merchandise. And that can be a dangerous because of differing perceptions on what an item is worth. Jewelry is a good example. The standard for the industry is triple cost for new jewelry. You can buy it used for the scrap value which is actually less than cost. A 14K ring is only 58.5% gold. The rest is alloys. Any diamonds, in the ring, do not have a scrap value but is still less that retail.
Apache
I would state this somewhat differently. In the US, you can be charged with a crime if you knowingly purchase stolen goods. Proof that you knew the goods were stolen can be shown by the facts and circumstances of the purchase, such as paying such a low price that you would have had to have known that the goods were stolen. Particularly if you bought it from a guy selling new boxed items out of his trunk.

Of course, if you have a gold buying business and are paying $50 for a diamond ring that retailed for $4,000 and aren't asking for any evidence of ownership, you may face some scrutiny. And rightly so.
Andrew H. is offline