# Letter of demand for civil claim related to shoplifting accusation (legal opinions) **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [April 28, 2017, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/letter-of-demand-for-civil-claim-related-to-shoplifting-accusation-legal-opinions/785403 "2017-04-28T00:43:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2017, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/letter-of-demand-for-civil-claim-related-to-shoplifting-accusation-legal-opinions/785403/21 "2017-09-13T07:32:13Z")
I’m surprised they’d wait so long to demand payment. The chain I work at hands shoplifters a bill on their way out the door. ---
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2017, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/letter-of-demand-for-civil-claim-related-to-shoplifting-accusation-legal-opinions/785403/22 "2017-09-13T19:27:03Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > I’m surprised they’d wait so long to demand payment. The chain I work at hands shoplifters a bill on their way out the door. May be a difference in state law. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2017, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/letter-of-demand-for-civil-claim-related-to-shoplifting-accusation-legal-opinions/785403/23 "2017-09-14T03:53:07Z")
> [@Caffeine.addict](#): > > For them to actually file suit would require them to have Virginia counsel on hand, and to prove the damages which is limited to two times the items value. They can get attorney’s fees for $150.00 which to me would make this a non-starter. Unless they have staff in Virginia pursuing other matters in this Courthouse, I don’t think it’s economically viable. > > That said, I’ve been in General District Court when collections matters are being pursued, and the amount of stuff they have is astounding. One attorney usually has about 20 matters on the docket, and the judge just works through all of them. Volume, volume, volume. I’m virtually certain that you hear a string of “Judgement on the affidavit, you honor,” only seldom interrupted by the presence of an actual defendant. And even then all that’s done is setting a trial date, then working backwards for a Bill of Particulars and then an Answer/Grounds of Defense. Yes? So done right, he can get twenty done in an hour, and his hourly rate starts to look good. For that hour, anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2017, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/letter-of-demand-for-civil-claim-related-to-shoplifting-accusation-legal-opinions/785403/24 "2017-09-14T04:22:38Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > $70 seems to be pretty cheap to make the problem go away. Seventy dollars might be cheap to make the problem go away. But it’s possible seventy dollars will just make the problem worse. Nothing stops the collection company from making up lists of people who pay off when threatened and then selling that list to other companies. If you pay off the first one, you might end up getting two or three more letters like it every month. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2017, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/letter-of-demand-for-civil-claim-related-to-shoplifting-accusation-legal-opinions/785403/25 "2017-09-14T19:24:02Z")
Sure. But there’s only one underlying claim. You’d have to be pretty stupid to pay it again. If Mr. Asen’s call center was actually scamming people by repeatedly claiming payment, he’d have been disbarred by now. > [@boytyperanma](#): > > Paying is an admission of guilt, so the store could then still file a criminal charge with even stronger evidence. This is completely wrong. One of the few universal features of the law of evidence in US jurisdictions is that an offer or agreement _to settle a claim_ may not be used to prove liability. > [@](#): > > Evidence of the following is not admissible — on behalf of any party — either to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim or to impeach by a prior inconsistent statement or a contradiction… furnishing, promising, or offering — or accepting, promising to accept, or offering to accept — a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise the claim… > > R. 408, Fed. R. Evid. ---
**Author:** ![foreveryoung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8797f3/32.png) [@foreveryoung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foreveryoung)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2017, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/letter-of-demand-for-civil-claim-related-to-shoplifting-accusation-legal-opinions/785403/26 "2017-11-12T19:32:34Z")
> [@CookingWithGas](#): > > I know someone (not me) who got caught pocketing a small item in a Target store and paying for other items, but not the pocketed one. Someone at the store took this person’s name and other data. The item was returned, and this person was released with a stern talking-to. > > Four months later this person gets a letter from Michael Ira Asen, P.C., Attorney at Law claiming to represent Target. The letter cites [state code](https://vacode.org/2016/8.01/3/3/8.01-44.4/) that says that a merchant is entitled to collect a civil penalty from a shoplifter, regardless of whether the merchandise was actually removed from the store and regardless of whether criminal charges were brought. > > The letter includes a “demand that you pay $69.96 in satisfaction of this civil claim.” There is no basis in the letter for that figure. > > This person is asking me for advice. I have done some searching and this seems to be just a hair above being a scam. The information regarding the date of the event and the person’s name and address is accurate and it appears that Target did provide the information to this attorney. Walmart seems to use the same guy. Some attorneys are on record on discussion sites that they advise their clients to ignore such letters. > > The attorney seems to be operating as a boiler room, with a toll free number available 8 AM - 11 PM and a [website](http://www.recoverypay.com/)to submit payments. Although it says this is not a debt collection action, it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. > > My hypothesis is that Target sells lists of such people to this guy and he collects whatever can through intimidation. Either that or he collects on contingency. > > Any lawyers out there hear of this guy or similar schemes? I am not asking for legal advice in the sense of asking you to be an attorney for this specific case, but I am looking for professional opinions of this type of operation in general. Did you ever pay for the civil demand letter? If so, what happened after?? ---
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2017, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/letter-of-demand-for-civil-claim-related-to-shoplifting-accusation-legal-opinions/785403/27 "2017-11-12T21:18:01Z")
> [@foreveryoung](#): > > Did you ever pay for the civil demand letter? If so, what happened after?? There was never any payment. A third letter more than a couple of months ago, and then nothing. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2017, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/letter-of-demand-for-civil-claim-related-to-shoplifting-accusation-legal-opinions/785403/28 "2017-11-12T22:00:55Z")
So legal opinion no longer required, and IANAL anyway, but if the person wanted to pay the $70 just to get rid of the nuisance but not have it construed as evidence of guilt, isn’t there a standard legal condition wherein payment is submitted and clearly labeled as “without prejudice”? Meaning “here’s the money to get you off my back, but I admit nothing”? On an unrelated tangent, I’m kind of amused by Target getting all hot and bothered over this trivial incident to the point of enlisting a lawyer – not that there’s ever an excuse for shoplifting, which is lowlife scumbaggery. It’s just that they have more important things to worry about. A few years ago they decided to expand into Canada, because Walmart is doing so well in Canada. They were given advice by Canadian retail specialists about retail strategies, the problem with their approach to taking over certain existing retail spaces, and other things they didn’t seem to understand about local markets. They listened to none of it. In their minds they were a retail giant, and they weren’t about to have a bunch of locals tell them what to do. Two years later, they closed up shop [after tallying up $5.4 billion in losses](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-target-canada/in-surprise-move-target-exits-canada-and-takes-5-4-billion-loss-idUSKBN0KO1HR20150115), and slunk back to the US leaving behind the most disastrous retail launch in history. Meanwhile, BTW, Walmart Canada – which _ **did** _ listen to retailers’ advice – is doing great and still expanding. So my theory is, the $69.96 is Target’s attempt to recoup some of that $5.4 billion. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2017, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/letter-of-demand-for-civil-claim-related-to-shoplifting-accusation-legal-opinions/785403/29 "2017-11-13T01:53:01Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > So legal opinion no longer required, and IANAL anyway, but if the person wanted to pay the $70 just to get rid of the nuisance but not have it construed as evidence of guilt, isn’t there a standard legal condition wherein payment is submitted and clearly labeled as “without prejudice”? Meaning “here’s the money to get you off my back, but I admit nothing”? > > On an unrelated tangent, I’m kind of amused by Target getting all hot and bothered over this trivial incident to the point of enlisting a lawyer I don’t know the legal details but my perception of prior discussion is that no magic words are necessary. You pay the money as settlement of a civil matter that is allowed by state law. It has nothing to do with criminal charges. I suspect that the lawyer has a deal with Target where he does a huge volume of these things nationwide. It’s not like Target called a lawyer after my contact’s incident. They probably upload a file once a month with all these records. This lawyer just sends out hundreds of form letters and sits back to wait for the checks to pour in, and gives Target a cut when they do. For Target it’s free money. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/letter-of-demand-for-civil-claim-related-to-shoplifting-accusation-legal-opinions/785403.md?page=1)