That "Buying Stolen Goods" Law makes no sense

[Marcos]

I dont know if its the same over here but i think it stands in the US. It doesnt make any sense that the person buying stolen equipment is in any way accountable/responsible.

[blueball]

They should be if they know or suspect the goods are stolen. If the law wasn't there people would buy stolen goods and then say oops didn't know they were stolen, sorry. This way it makes it harder for people to sell stolen goods. Not perfect but it makes an attempt.

[kalniel]

Yeah it does - ensures that the buyer makes every effort to check goods are genuine, thus deprives thieves of a market to sell on their goods. No buyers would reduce the reason to steal in the first place.

[mmh]

if thats the case, how the "expletive deleted" are cash converters still in business? O.o

[nvening]

The point is that if someone really didn't realise they wont get prosecuted, but when they clearly knew then they can be appropriately punished.

[jim]

There's a bit of a difference between buying a stereo off a reputable seller on eBay for £100 and buying a stereo from a random bloke who wanders into a pub and offers it out of a black bag for £10 cash.

I don't think you're going to get in trouble for the first, but how you expect to defend yourself in the second case I don't know. "It seemed genuine m'lud, there was a scratch on the top and no warranty."

[SammEl]

Pretty stupid, because most of the time people who buy stolen goods have no idea they are stolen i.e. Stolen cars sold for £10.000 with faked certificates making them near impossible to see as fake.

As long as you don't tell anyone - Or get caught which is highly unlikely - What's the problem?

[MadduckUK]

There's a bit of a difference between buying a stereo off a reputable seller on eBay for £100 and buying a stereo from a random bloke who wanders into a pub and offers it out of a black bag for £10 cash.

yeah, £90 as far as i can see

[cookie365]

Bit of confusion between civil law and criminal law here.

Criminal law:

A person handles stolen goods if (otherwise than in the course of the stealing) knowing or believing them to be stolen goods he dishonestly receives the goods, or dishonestly undertakes or assists in their retention, removal, disposal or realisation by or for the benefit of another person, or if he arranges to do so.

Suspicion isn't enough, has to be knowledge or belief.

Civil law:
You haven't bought the goods. Rule number one of buying stuff: make sure the person 'selling' it actually owns it. Rule number 2 of buying stuff: make sure the person 'selling' it is going to be around afterwards with assets to sue against if there's a problem.

Do the right checks. If it's 'near impossible' to check then it's possible to check. If you can't be absolutely sure that you're getting 'good title' for your money then you need to be clear to yourself that you're taking the risk.

Law is absolutely right IMHO.

[scaryjim]

Suspicion isn't enough, has to be knowledge or belief.

Furthermore, to be prosecuted for receiving stolen goods the prosecution would have to *prove* (beyond reasonable doubt, of course) that you knew or believed they were stolen. Not an easy task, really - unless you did buy something for 1/10th its retail value from a bloke down the pub

[Marcos]

Pretty stupid, because most of the time people who buy stolen goods have no idea they are stolen i.e. Stolen cars sold for £10.000 with faked certificates making them near impossible to see as fake.

As long as you don't tell anyone - Or get caught which is highly unlikely - What's the problem?

Exactly

[cookie365]

Furthermore, to be prosecuted for receiving stolen goods the prosecution would have to *prove* (beyond reasonable doubt, of course) that you knew or believed they were stolen. Not an easy task, really - unless you did buy something for 1/10th its retail value from a bloke down the pub

Though unusually if you have a bit of previous the court can take that into account as evidence that you knew or believed.

[scaryjim]

Pretty stupid, because most of the time people who buy stolen goods have no idea they are stolen

Exactly

No, not exactly. If you genuinely did not know, and had no reason to believe, that an article was stolen, you cannot be prosecuted. So if you bought a car @ a reasonable price and were provided with appropriate paperwork, you wouldn't face prosecution. If you bought the same car for a few hundred pounds off some bloke in an alley and got no paperwork, you might be on a stickier wicket. If you take sensible precautions and always buy from reputable sources than you should have nothing to worry about. And remember, if a deal looks too good to be true, then it probably is.

[TooNice]

There's a bit of a difference between buying a stereo off a reputable seller on eBay for £100 and buying a stereo from a random bloke who wanders into a pub and offers it out of a black bag for £10 cash.

Problem is, every reputable seller has got to start somewhere. I reckon that the average buyer is more concerned with receiving the goods foremost (in working order), than trying to find out about the ownership of the property. Maybe not so much that they don't care, but it's probably not unreasonable to assume that most sellers are honest, and most sellers, reputable or otherwise, do not provide the receipt of when they bought the item to go with it.

[cookie365]

Problem is, every reputable seller has got to start somewhere. I reckon that the average buyer is more concerned with receiving the goods foremost (in working order), than trying to find out about the ownership of the property. Maybe not so much that they don't care, but it's probably not unreasonable to assume that most sellers are honest, and most sellers, reputable or otherwise, do not provide the receipt of when they bought the item to go with it.

Not unreasonable to assume that most sellers are honest, true. But you aren't handing cash over to 'most sellers' are you?

[jim]

Problem is, every reputable seller has got to start somewhere. I reckon that the average buyer is more concerned with receiving the goods foremost (in working order), than trying to find out about the ownership of the property. Maybe not so much that they don't care, but it's probably not unreasonable to assume that most sellers are honest, and most sellers, reputable or otherwise, do not provide the receipt of when they bought the item to go with it.

That's what I'm saying though - I think it would have to be a fairly extreme example for it to be proved that you must've known something was up.

Presume that the eBay item was stolen - you've got no real way of knowing, and I don't think you're expected to investigate.

Now take the pub example... anybody with half a brain would be suspicious, and so they wouldn't buy it.

I think you'd have to be very unlucky to be convicted for handling stolen goods if you'd never suspected a thing.