I once had a hostel-mate who told a story about when he was living in New York or New Jersey somewhere, he happened to walk past a corner where a couple of guys were hurridly offloading boxes of (what appeared to be) video recorders ore something in return for cash. As he related it, it was a strictly fork-over-your-cash-take-your-box-and-get-the-hell-away-from-here kind of setup. In other words, he assumed he was going to get a great deal in purchasing stolen merchandise.
He handed over a $100 bill (for what presumably looked like several hundred dollars worth of video equipment), took the box home and found that it was full of rocks to make it feel heavier. No video equipment.
Guy was obviously a dishonest chump, but I wonder what crime the guys on the corner were committing, if any? Assuming that they never said that the boxes contained video equipment. Hey, I was just selling these interesting rocks, you know?
Theft by deception. Link. There’s no requirement to speak, especially if the criminal takes actions which are intended to cause confusion or an incorrect impression in the victim’s mind.
Much depends on the detail of the circumstances, but in most jurisdictions it is possible to make a representation without the use of words. This happens all the time in legitimate business. You buy a box of cornflakes and wordlessly run it past the checkout operator. If you got it home and it was full of gravel, the supermarket couldn’t smugly claim there hadn’t been a representation as to the contents of the box.
In the present case, if there was a uniform stack of similar boxes bearing apparently legitimate labels saying “Sanyo VCR” or whatever, then implied in the voiceless handing over of the box is the implication that the contents resemble the description on the label. There are potential (but not insurmountable) problems arising from the fact that your friend was attempting to receive stolen property, but that is a separate issue.
Jurisdictions differ as to the elements of the offence of what I might call generically fraud. Some require the making of a “false pretence”. But this commonly doesn’t have to be orally expressed. Some simply require proof that the $100 was “dishonestly obtained”, which is potentially at least even less restrictive. No doubt there are many different ways of expressing these elements.
But representations can be implied from the circumstances, and the law is usually not such an ass that it insists on proof of a clear verbal lie before there can be a fraud.
In this case, without a clearer indication of the detail of the circumstances, it is difficult to be definitive, but the lack of an express verbal assertion as to the nature of the contents is not necessarily determinative.
Since New Jersey was mentioned here is the statute:
NJ does not have a statute called “fraud”. Most cases that you would consider to be fraud fall under this statute. Computer/internet fraud falls under a different statute. The fact that the victim may have thought he was receiving stolen property is not a defense. Most cons work because of the greed of the victim. Doesn’t make them legal.
In the UK there’s a crime known as “stealing by finding” which seems to have been introduced under the Theft Act 1964. This has been used by zealous rozzers for prosecuting people who nick things out of skips that other people have thrown out.
The translation, of course, is that “This charge has been used by zealous members of the constabulary to prosecute people who have taken serviceable items without permission from rubbish bins.”
Bear in mind that the “Accidentally throwing out perfectly good merchandise for an accomplice (or the perpetrator) to recover later” modus operandi is well-known in retail loss prevention circles; which is (I would suspect) the intent of this law- along with having something to charge people who are Known To The Police with when they are found in possession of things they are unable to provide receipts for.
here, at any rate, ‘stealing by finding’ includes person who does not take reasonable steps to try to trace the owner of the property - normally, but not exclusively, by reporting the matter to the police. In the dumpster scenario, this would include a courtesy call on the front office to ask if he can rummage in the dumpster.
The OP’s scenario would be ‘obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception’.
).