This is purely hypothetical and I don’t need an answer fast. In fact I don’t need an answer at all. I’m just curious.
Is cash considered property for the receiving of stolen property? That is if someone steals money and then pays a debt with it would that be considered stolen property if the one paid did not know the money were stolen? Could it be recovered?
Well yes cash counts (in general it would - credit cards too - but only for plastic value(if they are unused)) - but it would have to be knowing for it to be a crime - so no in the case you gave.
Yes - stolen property would be returned to the owner
I was under the impression that a person who received stolen money unknowingly could, under certain circumstances, be made to pay it back, probably by being sued. I do remember reading something about physical cash (coins and bills), and it said that if physical cash is stolen and then recirculated back into the economy, you cannot demand that the original bills and coins that were stolen be returned to you as accounting for where the bills and coins ended up would interfere significantly with commerce. The receiver could pay you back with any old bills/coins and it would be good enough. This rule might not apply if the cash stolen has serious collectible value (e.g. if it is all from WW2 and reasonably could be expected to sell for more than its face value).
I’m not sure about this, but generally money is regarded as being fungible, so unless it is specifically identified by the defendant or by some other means, I don’t think it would be possible.
But practically speaking, I think it really depends on the circumstances. If he took $80 bucks from a kwikie mart, and he’s paying back an $80 loan, but it’s not unusual for him to have that much cash on his person, there wouldn’t be anything suspicious there - at least I don’t think so.
If it’s a few thousand dollars on the other hand and he’s well known for being broke all of the time, that’s suspicious. The thing is I don’t know if that would be reasonable suspicion to detain him, probable cause for an arrest, none of the above, etc.
interesting point. Assuming the broke person shows up with .
so if someone owes me and shows up with the and offers to pay me, what do I do? Refuse? Does that mean the debt is paid? What does the payer have to do to get me to accept payment? Can I demand his personal information on how he/she came by the ?
I am assuming none of the above. I guess I could call the cops, turn over the and if the payer came by it illegally, sue him for non-payment of the debt.
Yet another reason not to lend out you can’t afford to lose.
Oh, good point. I lost sight of who the focus was on. What I wrote was only thinking about whether the money could be used as evidence against the guy who stole it - which never even in issue.
Sigh. I’m sorry.
In PA: Yes; no, not to the payee; again, no, not to the payee.
Logically, I would agree. If I steal $1000, I owe that person $1000. There is no sense trying to get back “that” $1000, or trying to figure out where I spent it.
But HERE is a case of a guy who stole money from investors and lost it playing poker. Now the investors are suing to get their money back.
Note the key point in the article - the lawsuit suggests the games are illegal (depends on whether they are managed or not). If the game is illegal then the winners have no right to keep the money, meaning they must give it back to the ponzi thief who must then give it to his victims.
The suggestion then implied is that money given to the winning poker players in legitimate circumstances is not recoverable.
Although - I do also recall a case of a fellow from Ontario who was embezzling from the bank he worked in. The Vegas casinos would fly him down by private jet to lose in their establishments. The lawsuit alleged that they are complicit and must pay back the money because they should have reasonably known that a bank branch manager (I think he was) would not have that sort of money to throw away. they must have suspected he was stealing, and turning a willful blind eye, deliberately, made them complicit and so liable.
Not sure what happened with the lawsuit, but I’m betting they settled out of court… 4 to 1 odds…
But is this actually the case though? It would seem to me that if the cops bust up an illegal poker game they can chose to arrest those responsible or not, but do they really try to divvy up the cash? That would seem problematic.
You don’t have to commit a crime or know a crime occurred to forfeit property that had been stolen. I know a guy who bought a car from a used car lot. He had no reason to suspect the car had ever been stolen. But it was later found out that it had been stolen from a previous legal owner and that previous owner got the car back.
Reading between the lines, it seems the lawyers are arguing that if the poker game was illegal, the money was not given to the winners honestly and legally, so therefore they must give it back if the court so orders, and the court should so order. The transfer happened under a misapprehension that the transfer was legal, when it was not.
Whether the court buys that logic is a different kettle of fishy. ALso depends on whether the game is in fact technically illegal.
Maybe they’ll use the same analogy - if the game was illegal and Sam gambled away the family farm, then the title transfer should be illegal too; if you thought you were participating in a legal transaction and it turns out not to be…
Of course the thief will go along with this because presumably trying to recover the money will buy him a lighter sentence?
This happens frequently, especially with the smaller crimes. The prosecution and judge will want to help the victim recover his assets if possible, sending the criminal to jail won’t help alleviate the victim’s loss. Of course we all know the criminal is likely to keep stealing in this scenario, and when they are caught, it’s likely not for their first offense.
As a side note, recently on Pawn Stars they purchased an ancient coin that was stolen. They were worried that they’d lost their money since they’d have to turn over any stolen property, but the victim had been compensated for his loss, so the stolen coin was free and clear for them to purchase, and subsequently resell.
Was this an insurance payout? I would think the insurance company still have a right to recover it or rights to be compensated for its loss from the proceeds of the sale.
Sorry, I don’t have any details. Of course the insurance company was compensated in one sense, through the victim’s insurance payments. It’s an interesting question though.
As an interesting case, I have this one in my notes, at least for federal bank robbery purposes, a person who robs a bank then can NOT be charged with possession of stolen money/property
However, as a side note, property, you will find, if not specifically defined by statute as including money, will be included by case law.
To be charged with possession, as you ask, is another matter, the mens rea, or culpable mental state, must be proven, that the defendant knew it was stolen.
As you see here in the feds bank robbery law, it notes both money and property, so it is seperately defined.
Whoever, by force and violence, or by intimidation, takes, or attempts to take, from the person or presence of another, or obtains or attempts to obtain by extortion any property or money or any other thing of value belonging to, or in the care, custody, control, management, or possession of, any bank, credit union, or any savings and loan association; or
The issue seemed to be whether, having been convicted of participating in a robbery (lookout while others took the money) she was also guilty of “receiving” (NOT “possessing”) stolen goods when handed a share of the loot. But yes, money is enumerated separately.
It seems in this case the moeny is silver. In general, the trick is to prove the money is from the robbery. Unless it is appropriately labelled or the serial numbers are noted, money is money.