I was listening to the Kim Commando show (it’s basically a techy-geek show for folks that aren’t too technical).
Anyway, a guy called in and was asking for advice on a new camcorder. Seems his first one was stolen, and the police found it at a pawn shop. The real owner of the thing said he had to pay the pawn shop to get it back, and instead of that figured he’d buy a new one instead.
Can this be true? How can the pawn shop not be in a little bit of trouble for buying stolen property? Why would the owner of the stolen product have to pay the pawn shop to get his own property back?
Unfortunately, I didn’t get a state, and they didn’t delve into the questions that immediately came to my mind, so I’m wondering if any of you have the straight dope on pawn shops and the law.
Let’s say it’s true in some states, and you have to pay them at least what they paid for it (roughly one-tenth of resale value): If they didn’t have a shot at recouping their losses, how obligated would they feel to alert the police or you?
In Los Angeles, they would feel pretty obligated because their pawn shop license depended upon it. Pawn shops manage the risk of losses by charging interest on loans and by simple retailing, buy for a dollar and sell for two.
I still have trouble with state-mandated sales of stolen property. I would love to see some links to laws that mandate a victim must purchase their stolen property back from a pawnshop (or anyone else who happens to be in possession of said stolen property)
I wonder if the real difficulty is in proving that it is in fact your item and that it was stolen. If you have the serial number and reported it stolen, perhaps there would be a different story.
WAG: If the pawn shop owner followed all the necessary regulations* and purchased the item in good faith**, why should he be out the money he paid for the item? That would be a law requiring him to take the place of the original victim.
Checking ID, keeping records of who they purchased the goods from, that sort of thing.
** - In other words, his records don’t show him buying eight camcorders, nine used wallets, sixteen mobile phones and three iPods from the same guy in the course of several days and then claiming he had no reason to suspect they were stolen.
If the pawn shop owner followed all the necessary regulations, his recourse would be with the person who sold him the items. The police and then the DA, who also would be interested in the seller, may be of assistance in helping the pawn shop owner recover money from the seller.
I have, NotSpartacus. I just hadn’t thought of a person who unknowingly receives stolen property as a fence; I’ve always connected the term with someone who receives and sells goods they are aware were stolen. Isn’t a pawnbroker required to refuse to buy goods they believe are stolen?
And if the rightful owner doesn’t track it down until it is sold to someone else, what happens? Can they demand it be returned free of charge, and leave the unwitting purchaser to pursue the pawnbroker to return their money, who in turn must track down the original thief for the return of his money? One victim turns into a trail of victims.
I have dim recollections of talking about this stuff with my father years ago and his explanation was that the law protected pawnbrokers so they weren’t forced out of business, and they were required to follow strict guidelines regarding keeping accurate records of sellers and having a reasonable belief that the goods they were buying weren’t stolen. My father is neither a lawyer nor a pawnbroker (nor a thief, FWIW) so I don’t know where he sourced his information, or if it applies elsewhere. He might have been giving me his own “common sense” explanation for why he thought the laws shafted the original victim.
If a pawnbroker can be forced to return goods that are reported stolen, couldn’t a pair of people fleece them dry by selling goods to them (under a false ID) and then reporting them stolen and reclaiming them?
The legislation here is the Pawnbrokers and Second-hand Dealers Act 1996 (NSW). If you’ve previously reported the theft to the police, and you can provide appropriate proof of ownership, you can request that the police issue a ‘restoration notice’ to the pawnbroker. This requires the pawnbroker either to hand over the stolen goods, or if not willing to do so, to apply to a Tribunal for further assessment of ownership.
You may have similar legislation in Victoria, Cazzle.
I had a generator stolen from right in front of my home. I called the police and filed a report. A month later the police from a nearby town called, my generator was found in a pawn shop, if I wanted to I could go get it. The pawn shop owner refused to give it back despite the fact I had a copy of the police report (with serial number) and my driver’s license number was engraved on it in 3 different locations. A call to the police and the threat of a citation for recieving stolen property and it was given back.
One problem with this scheme is that a legitimate, or reasonably intelligent, pawnbroker would quit buying from that source after the first theft claim. His continued purchases from that source would be a classic “fooled me twice, shame on me” kind of thing.
I can see the logic in having the owner of the item claim the theft on insurance, then purchase the item from the pawnbroker, assuming the pawnbroker is under scrutiny for his buying practices. On the other hand, I could also see a logic in having pawnbrokers need to insure themselves against the “loss” of having to return stolen goods. Whatever logic applies, though, it sounds like the legal treatment will depend on state law.
Well, true. It would only be a problem if it becomes a common scam, perpetrated by many. I guess I had in mind a con where they traded a large number of items in one go, but it wouldn’t be very sensible of a pawnbroker to pay out more money than he can afford to.
Thanks for that info, Cunctator. As I said, I was going off a dim recollection of a conversation with my father, who has no particular reason to have in-depth knowledge on this subject and may have just been speculating about what makes sense to him.
If the original owner followed all the necessary regulations and owned the item in good faith (?), why should he be out the item when it is stolen? I cannot accept that the pawnshop owner has a “stronger” right to this property than the original owner. The purchase was not valid, as the seller did not have the right to sell the item. I feel sympathy for the pawn shop owner, but also feel that in the real world this expense (either of losing money in a transaction like this or of additional overhead in trying to weed out sellers of stolen goods) needs to be build into their business model.
It would probably be impractical, even dangerous, to implement in the real world, but as an abstract ethical issue I still consider the original owner the current owner: if he sees the item in the pawnshop it is his to walk away with.
Under the “buying under good faith means you own it” policy I guess those suckers who bought the Brooklyn Bridge weren’t such suckers after all!
Just throwing this out there. What if the pawnshop owner has sold the item and it is identified in the home of the new purchaser? Does the original owner have any claim then?
