While watching the news they did a spot on how someguy got his bike stolen. It was worth over a thousand dollars. Well no one was helping him so he looked thru eBay and Craigslist and he found a bike like his on Craigslist. In reality it was his bike.
Long story shorter, he got the guy who placed the ad, made an appointment to see it, then got the cops and sure enough they arrested the guy for possession of stolen goods.
Then the cop said “Consumers have to be careful buying on online sites, because had someone bought this bike from this guy they could be charged with ‘receiving stolen goods’.”
I can see the cop’s viewpoint but still what exactly IS your responsiblity to make sure the person OWNS the product. I mean I have a TV and other things if I wanted to sell them, I certainly no longer have the purchase receipt.
What’s the SD on this? Could they really charge someone with receiving stolen goods by purchasing something on eBay or Craigslist or the like.
Relevant part of Illinois Criminal Code:
(720 ILCS 5/16‑1)
Sec. 16‑1. Theft.
(a) A person commits theft when he knowingly:
****
(4) Obtains control over stolen property knowing the
property to have been stolen or under such circumstances as would reasonably induce him to believe that the property was stolen....
First: this is not intended to be legal advice to you about any particular set of circumstances you may be facing or find yourself facing in the future. I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client. To get competent legal advice specific to your situation, discuss your particulars with a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction.
In general, here is a discussion about the general issues regarding possession or receipt of stolen property. Specific circumstances may have details that change the picture considerably. This is a general comment on a general crime only.
Generally.
The general rule is that the offense must include a scienter element – meaning that the accused must KNOW that the items he posseses were stolen. To convict a accused, typically the state must prove that property was (1) previously stolen by another, and (2) received by defendant, (3) with knowledge of the theft, and (4) a dishonest intent. Knowledge that the goods received were stolen property is almost certainly going to be an essential element of the crime, one which the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Unless the accused has made an admission about what he knew, such knowledge of necessity must be proved by circumstantial evidence. It is usually enough to show that the totality of the circumstances surrounding the possession are such as must have made or caused the recipient of stolen goods to believe they were stolen.
In other words – buying a top-end, $1000 mountain bike for $50 might well be enough to convince a jury that you knew, or should have known, that you wer getting stolen goods. On the other hand, buying that bike for $900 would probably be enough to convince a jury that you had no dishonest intent and had no way of knowing the bike was stolen.
IANAL, but as was explained to me by a law-student:
It is not necessary to know for sure that the item is stolen. If the receiver is getting the item for SIGNIFIGANTLY below its fair value, there is a burden placed upon the receiver to obtain proof that he is receiving the item legally. If the price is far enough below the item’s fair value, it is assumed that it is POSSIBLE that the item is stolen (why else would someone take such a hit on such valuable property?).
That was funny that you said that, the guy who got his bike stolen, said originally looked at the ad, in Craigslist, because the bike was being sold for so much less than he thought it should be.
But again it begs the questions, how much effort should a buyer put in when answering an ad online to assure he isn’t getting stolen goods.
Price is convenient, but it’s not the only factor. If I sell you a car for market value, but can’t produce a title and the steering column key hole has been ripped apart, it won’t do you any good to point out how you were paying a reasonable price… there were other circumstances that let you know, or reasonably should have let you know, that the car was stolen.
ANY factor that can show you knew or should have known would be sufficient ti sustain a conviction for receiving stolen property.
Beyond that, I can only advise you to contact a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction. I am not prepared to advise you about specific situations you may encounter. This is not legal advice, and you should not rely on it as such.
I was on a jury that had to decide this question. Saying that you bought the stolen merchandise for cash, out of the back of a van, from “some guy” in a shopping center parking lot, isn’t going to go over well with the jury. Especially when a copy of the original bill of sale is taped to the bottom of the item in question.
Not wishing to hijack, but what about pawnbrokers? I only know them through fictional accounts, where they invariably try to pay out as little money as possible for goods - suspiciously little by the sounds of it. Are they required to make more stringent checks than the average someguy?
First I want to thank the SDMB lawyers for their usual helpful advice and careful warnings about the lack of a attorney-client relationship.
(I wish being a chess expert would let me say something similar )
I’ve heard that a secondhand item (e.g. a car), even in fine condition, is only worth around 50% of its initial sale value.
Am I right?
Presumably that varies with item? (e.g. a computer game value seems to decrease proportionally with time and finally drop dramatically when the next version of the game is released)
Generally, if there is a reasonably standard secondhand market valuation, then I am covered under the law if I buy a product at that value (assuming its appearence is not suspicious)?
In my state, pawnbrokers are required to check the identity of every person from whom they accept property, and in some places periodically supply police with a list of property they have received, including serial numbers if the property in question has serial numbers.
A friend got his chainsaw stolen and reported it to police. The chainsaw showed up at a nearby pawnshop and the serial # matched. BUT…said friend had to purchase the chainsaw from the pawnshop…even tho he’d reported it stolen and supplied the police with the serial #. Hardly seems fair that the pawnshop still gets to make money selling stolen merchandise back to it’s rightful owners. I’m hoping the pawnshop got the pawning thief’s information and he can be persued.
)