From when the crime is committed, or when it’s discovered?
As in, suppose I inherit a diamond tiara. Not leading a life that generally calls for me to wear it, I plunk the case into my safety deposit box, and there it sits. Or so I think.
Then ten years later I get invited to a royal wedding (or whatever) and discover that the tiara has been stolen. Somehow the police establish that it was the Evil Bank Manager who took it – but they can’t say when it happened.
Assuming that the SOL is, say, seven years, could the EBM get off scott free by proving he took it nine years earlier? (I dunno, maybe he posted a picture of himself wearing it on Facebook nine years ago.)
And, even if he can’t be tried, can he still be made to cough up the tiara, or what it’s worth, to me?
Failing that, could I at least rat him out to the IRS and get the reward, assuming he didn’t report it as income?
It’s stolen property and would be returned to it’s rightful owner no matter how long the theft possessed it. This is common practice with stolen works of art throughout the world.
IANAL but I’d say the statute starts when the discovery of theft is made. Not sure when or why a statue would be started. And why would they trust the theft to tell them when to start the timeline?
Hey. In Leo Bloom’s thread asking whether he killed his a/c, Joey P used the contraction “it’s” incorrectly as well. Just FYI and … don’t become a slacker.
I don’t know about general criminal law, but IRS statutes of limitation usually start ticking when a return is filed. Three years to audit for any reason, six years if there’s a substantial mis-statement of income. No limit if tax fraud is committed, but tax fraud requires that they show criminal intent, which means “Oops, I forgot to report it” is a pretty strong defense against fraud. The IRS then has to show that you knew about it and that you intended to not report it.
So… after nine years, you’re probably out of luck with the IRS too.
It depends on the crime and jurisdiction, but generally the statute begins to run from the commission of the crime. Florida, like many states, makes exceptions for crimes involving victims who are minors, violent crimes where DNA evidence identifies the perpetrator after the general statute has run, and a few others.
The SOL on inchoate crimes like conspiracy and other crimes which may be ongoing generally doesn’t beginning until the defendant stops committing that crime.
There will be a separate statute of limitations for a civil action for the return of personal property, like a tiara. Generally it will be less than nine years.
Could you elaborate on “concealment” ? Don’t criminals almost always conceal their crimes? (except for the ones who brag about it on social media- kids these days!)
Isn’t the possession of stolen goods itself a crime, barring a defense like “I bought it at a yard sale and didn’t know it was stolen”? So simply possessing the stolen tiara would be a crime unless the evil banker can show he didn’t steal it, and the statute of limitations wouldn’t run out because the crime is still ongoing? Not an expert here. But I think that’s what slash was referring to re: concealment. Concealing a crime is something that is ongoing, and so the SOL won’t run out. So if they can’t get them for theft, they can get them for concealing the theft.
Doesn’t possession require knowledge of the crime, or reasonable belief? The way I heard it explained, I.e. if I buy a stolen TV for $10, I should have known it was stolen; if I paid the going rate for a second-hand TV… not guilty. So if banker dude’s defense is “I found it discarded in the alley beside the bank the morning after Halloween and never suspected it was real” he’d be scott free, no kilt.
I also thought I read (here?) once that the statute of limitations did not apply once charges were laid, the person now became a wanted man instead, and sometimes DA’s will lay charges against “John Doe with this DNA” to ensure the crime get prosecuted. After all, you do not have to have the person’s exact name etc. to issue a warrant - just something more definite other than “some guy to be identified later”.
And why would they trust the theft to tell them when to start the timeline?