Buying back a stolen iPhone

[Stopsignhank]

Thanks for the update R. Sounds like the cops just wanted to make everything right. As the dad of an autistic son I have to give the guy the benefit of the doubt. I agree with your GF about sending him the phone. I mean he did nothing logically right about this whole thing so as we say, he must have a touch of something. I little good Karma is always a good thing.

 

[Printer Bandit]

why not water board the guy to give up the name of the woman that he got the phone from ?

 

[rh71]

Thanks for the update R. Sounds like the cops just wanted to make everything right.

That has been my experience with most professionals, including lawyers too. They don't do stings like we see on tv, nothing like we wish would happen as revenge. They just want settlement and all sides happy. Clearly it's also less work for them. We've had detectives tell us "don't get your hopes up" and the like. I feel like the authorities are just there to comfort us most times. And no, I don't have a hate for them. It's just the way it seems to be in too many cases.

Yesterday I started a thread about someone buying Amazon GCs through my account somehow. I talked to Amazon and they apparently have actual names of the recipients (I can't see them). Then I get an email from their security department that said there doesn't seem to be any suspicious activity, and to ask my family if they made the purchases. WTF... you have names and emails - 9 redeemed GCs in 1 day, and there's no suspicious activity? They screwed you guys out of $900 and I'm sure it won't be the last time. Does nobody want justice or retribution?

 

[Ns1]

Thanks for not goosing us.

 

[rh71]

Since this thread has a result... let's get back to this possession of stolen property law....

That whole premise is flawed and predicated on the fact that the buyer is a moron to give their bought goods which they believe to be legitimate to person B w/o any proof. It's a leap of logic. You would expect any honest buyer to require proof of ownership, from Person A, and then Person B, the second time obviously with police involvement. Regardless, recovery of stolen property is police business anyways, so whomever the buyer is, they don't have a choice in the matter.

1) Person B, the actual owner could very well have just given the item to Person A to sell for them in preparation for the scam. Person B obviously would have proof to provide the cops. How is this a leap if their intention is to scam people???

2) You're right, the scammed buyer doesn't have a choice in returning it if it is proven to belong to person B. Which is what makes it a good scam, and an obvious loophole that can be taken advantage of in the law. Person A could easily disappear with no trace for authorities to pick up (this isn't tv).

An honest buyer requiring proof of ownership from Person A before buying? How often does this happen? I've sold many things in person and online and not once has anyone asked to see an original receipt or even a box. Maybe I should ask the ATOTer to get me his original receipt for the iPhone 4 he sold me last year. Don't be ridiculous - there's no need for an "honest buyer" - unless you specifically argue against being scammed in this way, something you didn't even understand initially.

It is also true that it can't be done many times by the same people, which is why a big ticket item would be a nice get for them. And a big concern for the scammed buyer now out $1k+. No law is protecting them at all. Instead of focusing on that, you're focusing on having to return the property - that's not the argument.

 

[thesmokingman]

Since this thread has a result... let's get back to this possession of stolen property law....



1) Person B, the actual owner could very well have just given the item to Person A to sell for them in preparation for the scam. Person B obviously would have proof to provide the cops. How is this a leap if their intention is to scam people???

2) You're right, the scammed buyer doesn't have a choice in returning it if it is proven to belong to person B. Which is what makes it a good scam, and an obvious loophole that can be taken advantage of in the law. Person A could easily disappear with no trace for authorities to pick up (this isn't tv).

An honest buyer requiring proof of ownership from Person A before buying? How often does this happen? I've sold many things in person and online and not once has anyone asked to see an original receipt or even a box. Maybe I should ask the ATOTer to get me his original receipt for the iPhone 4 he sold me last year. Don't be ridiculous - there's no need for an "honest buyer" - unless you specifically argue against being scammed in this way, something you didn't even understand initially.

It is also true that it can't be done many times by the same people, which is why a big ticket item would be a nice get for them. And a big concern for the scammed buyer now out $1k+. No law is protecting them at all. Instead of focusing on that, you're focusing on having to return the property - that's not the argument.

Omg, are you high? You bought stolen property. What rights to the stolen property do you think you should have? Here's a pro tip, you have nothing on the stolen property so stop whining about it. It belongs to someone else. If some dumbass buyer is out money from buying stolen property, that's probably a good time to ask the cops for help yea? No law protecting them... smh.

A just because you've never asked for a receipt as proof of purchase, that doesn't mean it applies to everyone else. I always get proof of purchase for electronics. How else are you going to apply for warranties should the worst happen? It was pretty common practice to transfer warranties, like with xfx lifetime warranties etc. oir Evga, or other serial based warranties like MSI. You need proof of ownership in most cases.

 

[Perknose]

Does that mean if I unknowingly buy stolen property (for close to actual value), I have to give it back for free?

In many jurisdictions, it is a crime to be in the receipt of stolen property, even if you claim not to have known it was stolen.

 

[Mursilis]

In many jurisdictions, it is a crime to be in the receipt of stolen property, even if you claim not to have known it was stolen.

At least on the federal level, you had to have known the property was stolen, and it's up to the prosecution to prove that fact.

 

[Perknose]

At least on the federal level, you had to have known the property was stolen, and it's up to the prosecution to prove that fact.

Fed statute only pertains if you or the merch has crossed state lines.

But in many states or smaller jurisdictions:

Further, if you receive property as a gift or store it in your home, knowing that it’s stolen or under circumstances that should have alerted you to its stolen nature, you’ve also committed a crime.

[...]

In a case involving a “should have known” situation, a prosecutor must show that a reasonable person would have suspected the items were stolen. The “reasonable person” standard means that if an average person in the defendant's situation would behave been suspicious of the goods, the defendant should be suspect of them as well. That’s all the prosecutor needs to show. In other words, the defendant’s willful ignorance of the facts, or naivete, won’t help him if a reasonable person in his situation would have concluded that the goods were hot. If the defendant then acquires the items anyway and they turn out to be stolen, the defendant should have known they were stolen and is guilty of receipt of stolen property.

For example, let's say a man approaches you and asks if you'd like to buy some premium jewelry for very cheap prices. He shows you a collection of necklaces, rings, and watches in a brown paper bag. None of the jewelry has sales tags or packaging. In this situation, any reasonable person would suspect that the items were stolen. By purchasing them, you commit the crime of receiving stolen property.

So, in the OP's case, absent any successful argument of diminished capacity, the guy who bought the phone outside of a pawn shop for a suspiciously low price could be prosecuted if the jurisdiction in which he did so had a statue like above.

But . . .

As also outlined by the OP in the resolution of this case, most LEOs like to follow KISS for this and other "lower level" crimes. A successful resolution (return of the property) w/o clogging the court system and tying up resources is generally preferrable.