We Remember The Magic Caf We Remember
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » ""Lucky" Oz Couple ... (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On 2010-04-09 12:22, Chance wrote:
Fine. Then also charge the shop owner for fencing stolen goods and/or as a co-conspirator in the "theft". It's a perfectly natural progression to the claims underlying the so-called crime. Because under this type of claim anyone at all who touched this suitcase should bear some measure of culpability, however small. But if such actions are never taken, then it is clear that the law over reaches in this type of situation and that the police are simply reaching for the lowest hanging fruit.

No, it doesn't. The shop did nothing wrong. Well, maybe it did. It should have made absolutely sure that the goods it received were given to it by someone with the authority to do so. But at least the shop did nothing in bad faith. Nor did it try to make a claim to the money.

Quote:
On 2010-04-09 12:22, Chance wrote:

But this does not mean that a crime has occured. Sometimes it has to be chalked up to plain bad luck. But what is absolutely wrong, is for the state to step in and abuse its unlimited power to prosecute such a scenario.

The couple finding the money, by their actions, made it apparent that they did in fact know that they were doing something criminal.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
Chance
View Profile
Inner circle
1385 Posts

Profile of Chance
Criminal, or just wanting to keep the tax man at bay? The difference is HUGE.

And yes, fenced goods are fenced goods, even if the middle man is completely innocent of any wrongdoing. So if the recipient is a criminal, so is who ever sold them the goods. Ask any pawn shop if you don't take my word for it.

The moment the state places an unrealistic burden on the finders and how the should behave after such a discovery, the state is then allowed to decide what measures are or aren't enough. In other words, if they want to make you a criminal, then they will, and no amount of reasonable behavior on your part as the finder will ever satisfy the states need to find a party criminaly negligent. The only correct answer is for the state to not try and make everyone a criminal under every questionable circumstance. Sometimes accidents of fate are exactly that.
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Fencing refers to someone who knowingly buys stolen property for later resale in a (usually) legitimate market. That (probably) wasn't the case with the shop owner in this case.

Quoting someone off the web, the way "statutes regarding the receipt of stolen property tend to work is that the person receiving, transporting or transferring the property must have known or REASONABLY should have known that the items were stolen". Again, I think that probably was NOT the case with the shop owner.

Chance, you keep bringing up examples and situations that have no relevance to the case at hand. At least, so it seems to me.

Finally, and hopefully in closing, there is no unrealistic burden being placed on the finders (the couple who found the cash) here. Shoot, they clearly knew they were in the wrong. They showed that by their actions. It is unlikely that they were simply hiding the money to keep the tax man away as you suggested ... but if they were doing that, then perhaps they should be charged for attempted tax fraud.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
gaddy
View Profile
Inner circle
Agent of Chaos
3331 Posts

Profile of gaddy
Quote:
On 2010-04-09 12:32, kcg5 wrote:
Gaddy-that was yours? ***, I put it on black to win and it did! What a night that was.


You're going to jail for "Theft by Finding" then mate, unless I get nicked for attempted murder first!


By the absurdity of this law I would seem to also have a legal right to your winnings as well...
*due to the editorial policies here, words on this site attributed to me cannot necessarily be held to be my own.*
Chance
View Profile
Inner circle
1385 Posts

Profile of Chance
My examples seem relevant to me or I wouldn't be giving them. And as far as I can see no one else is offering anything in rebuttal except for "we know they are guilty, and so did they". Hardly evidence of a crime I would say.

How do you think of someone that goes to a yard sale and purchases something valuable for pennies, knowing in advance what is what, and yet fails to make mention to the seller? This person is taking actual physical steps to defraud, and is doing so with greed as their sole motivation. They are cheats, and they know it. And they plan to sell their ill gotten goods for a hefty windfall, and none of it will go to the yard seller. Their prime motiviation is greed, and they will gladly undercut the seller to make it happen.

From your prior message it seems this person should go scott free in your opinion. But in mine, this person is literally a million times more culpable than the people from this story, who did nothing more than purchase an old suitcase from a thrift store and took no actions to defraud anyone.

Here's the catch nobody is seeming to want to discuss: What if next time it isn't $200,000USD? What if next time it's just $2,000, and you were the buyer? But there isn't any cash, and never was. It's a reverse scam, and now you're the mark. According to all that you stand here protecting -- the states right to interceed into every nook and cranny of your personal life -- you will be arrested, labelled a criminal, and be forced into court to defend yourself, and for what? Even if the money is never 'recovered', your life is still left in a shambles.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1199 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
I confess. I bought a second copy of "Castle Notebooks," knowing that it was underpreiced and almost as soon as L & L was sold out, I could sell it for 50% more, which I thereupon did on Ebay. Somebody get the cuffs.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
Nosher
View Profile
Loyal user
261 Posts

Profile of Nosher
Quote:
On 2010-04-09 17:01, Chance wrote:

This person is taking actual physical steps to defraud, and is doing so with greed as their sole motivation.


No. They have taken no steps at all to defraud. There is no fraud involved in paying the seller what he or she is asking. The transaction is commercial and nothing illegal is involved. If the guy wants to sell his Monet for $500, that is his bad luck. Now you might find it immoral not to mention to the guy that he's selling you something worth millions for $500, but it's not illegal.

On a cheerier note, a decade or so ago a couple of guys found $400,000 buried in plastic containers under Balaclava railway station. They handed it to the police and after a few months the police gave it to them. Personally, I'm not sure I'd want the kind of people I imagine who bury $400,000 to knocking on my door - but that's another matter entirely.
Escapemaster-in-chief from all sorts of houdingplaces - Finnegans Wake
Chance
View Profile
Inner circle
1385 Posts

Profile of Chance
Nosher, you're making my point for me. I'm playing devils advocate. The point I'm making is that if one scenario is totally innocent, then so is the other. I believe both to be innocent, at least from a criminal standpoint.
ed rhodes
View Profile
Inner circle
Rhode Island
2817 Posts

Profile of ed rhodes
From a "criminal" standpoint, no they are not.

There is no law in Australia concerning buying something for less than it's true value, but there is a law concerning finding money and not making some attempt to find the original owner.
"All the world's a stage, but the play is badly cast!" - Oscar Wilde
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Another finder case in the news. Is this significantly different? If so, how? Just throwing some chum in the forum water for you guys to attack. Smile

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/tech......91&tsp=1

Brian Hogan, a 21-year-old resident of Redwood City, said through his lawyer that when he accepted $5,000 from Gizmodo for the phone, he thought he was providing Gizmodo exclusive access to review it.

"He regrets his mistake in not doing more to return the phone," said attorney Jeffrey Bornstein in a statement. "Even though he did obtain some compensation from Gizmodo, Brian thought that it was so that they could review the phone."

Hogan has been interviewed by police but has not been charged. Under California law, a person who finds an object that has information about its owner must make reasonable and just efforts to return the phone before appropriating it for themselves.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » ""Lucky" Oz Couple ... (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2022 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.02 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL