Couple Steals From Amazon

[sealbeater]

Originally Posted by astrangerhere

The court ruled that she should have known something had to be fishy and should not have made the purchase. She was charged and convicted of Receipt of Stolen Goods.

The case later appeared as a question on the bar examination.

That's disappointing. I'm not sure how someone is supposed to not jump on a deal.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by astrangerhere

The court ruled that she should have known something had to be fishy and should not have made the purchase. She was charged and convicted of Receipt of Stolen Goods.

The case later appeared as a question on the bar examination.

Originally Posted by sealbeater

That's disappointing. I'm not sure how someone is supposed to not jump on a deal.

The old motto about if it sounds too good to true, it probably is comes to mind.

[astrangerhere]

Originally Posted by sealbeater

That's disappointing. I'm not sure how someone is supposed to not jump on a deal.

The statutory notes literally use the phrase "too good to be true." I mean, really, brand new for an 80% discount on a gray website should make one wonder. The law is designed to keep pawn shops from being fences, but it applies to all.

[sealbeater]

Originally Posted by DNSB

The old motto about if it sounds too good to true, it probably is comes to mind.

Of course but I've gotten lots of things super cheaply. Spotting and jumping on a good deal shouldn't equate to having the court decide you have criminal intent.

[sealbeater]

Originally Posted by astrangerhere

The statutory notes literally use the phrase "too good to be true." I mean, really, brand new for an 80% discount on a gray website should make one wonder. The law is designed to keep pawn shops from being fences, but it applies to all.

I wasn't aware it was "brand new" but wondering isn't the same as knowing. I realize that my opinion and that of the courts often differ but lack of specific criminal intent should factor in positively. "They should have known better" shouldn't be cause to find someone guilty. IMO.

[Apache]

Back around 1980, when gold was at $800.00 a Troy Ounce, a friend of mine was a witness for the defense in just such a case. The Jeweler made a deal with department stores in the region. He would set up and heavily advertise that the store was buying gold. He made a killing and local authorities charged him with buying stolen merchandise. They claimed that at the low amounts he was paying he should have known that some of the merchandise was stolen. My friend was able to show that the low prices paid for the jewelry was actually a nation wide industry standard. The jury found the jeweler innocent. Even today most pawn shops and jewelry stores that buy jewelry pay around 20% to 30% of the value of the gold content. Back when gold was hitting $1,900.00 a Troy Ounce the companies advertising on TV and the Internet were found to be paying only 10%.
Apache

[GlennD]

There's an old joke/urban legend about someone buying a fancy car for $100 (or similarly low price), and when they ask about it the seller says her husband just ran off with his secretary, and told her to sell the car and send him the money.

I can understand the point of the law, but it doesn't seem fair to expect a buyer to be the responsible party.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by GlennD

There's an old joke/urban legend about someone buying a fancy car for $100 (or similarly low price), and when they ask about it the seller says her husband just ran off with his secretary, and told her to sell the car and send him the money.

I can understand the point of the law, but it doesn't seem fair to expect a buyer to be the responsible party.

It's a literal game of hot potato. The buyer is the one in possession of stolen goods. They're not the only responsible party, but they're a necessary element. If the market for stolen goods dried up, there'd be no point to much larceny.

[sealbeater]

Originally Posted by issybird

It's a literal game of hot potato. The buyer is the one in possession of stolen goods. They're not the only responsible party, but they're a necessary element. If the market for stolen goods dried up, there'd be no point to much larceny.

This presumes an assumption of knowledge of the crime in question, which I personally find disturbing.

If I buy a set of power tools cheaply, it's unreasonable to assume I would have any knowledge of any crime leading to the sale of those tools.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by sealbeater

This presumes an assumption of knowledge of the crime in question, which I personally find disturbing.

If I buy a set of power tools cheaply, it's unreasonable to assume I would have any knowledge of any crime leading to the sale of those tools.

Unless, of course, you are buying them from some guy selling said tools from his trunk on a street corner.

[astrangerhere]

Originally Posted by sealbeater

This presumes an assumption of knowledge of the crime in question, which I personally find disturbing.

If I buy a set of power tools cheaply, it's unreasonable to assume I would have any knowledge of any crime leading to the sale of those tools.

It's a matter of degrees. If that set is brand new, never opened, and being sold to you for a 80-90% discount, wouldn't you at least pause to consider that it might not be above board? I'm not talking about buying from Overstock or some similar site. I'm talking about buying from an individual (not a company).

If the woman in the Craigslist case had asked the question and been given a plausible explanation, she would likely not have been charged, so long as she wasn't daft for believing what she was told. The above-mentioned urban legend is a good example. In fact, and Pooh can back me up on this, there were signs all over Chapel Hill and Durham last month advertising a house for sale for $35,000 because "wife is forcing sale."

[tubemonkey]

Man charged with making $1.3 million in fraudulent returns to Walmart

Police in Arizona thought they were busting an ordinary case of a fraudulent return this week until some digging discovered the same 23-year-old man has perpetrated the scheme at thousands of Walmart stores across the country.

Police in Yuma, Arizona, said they responded to a case of a fraudulent return on Wednesday afternoon in which a person bringing a computer back to Walmart had allegedly removed parts of the computer before putting it back in the box and taking it back to the store.

Upon investigation, the Yuma Police Department found out the same man had pulled the same scheme at a different Walmart earlier in the day.

Yuma police say Frudaker pulled similar schemes at more than 1,000 Walmart stores across the country over the past 18 months and caused a monetary loss of "approximately" $1.3 million to Walmart.

[frahse]

Originally Posted by Barbara1955

Ken they were Not stealing from other customers...

--------

THEY DID STEAL FROM OTHER CUSTOMERS, FROM ME!

All businesses pass their losses to all their customers.