10-11-2012, 10:54 PM | #76 | |
Grand Master of Flowers
Posts: 2,201
Karma: 8389072
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Naptown
Device: Kindle PW, Kindle 3 (aka Keyboard), iPhone, iPad 3 (not for reading)
|
Quote:
Of course, if you have a gold buying business and are paying $50 for a diamond ring that retailed for $4,000 and aren't asking for any evidence of ownership, you may face some scrutiny. And rightly so. |
|
10-12-2012, 02:33 AM | #77 |
Basculocolpic
Posts: 4,356
Karma: 20181319
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sweden
Device: Kindle 3 WiFi, Kindle 4SO, Kindle for Android, Sony PRS-350 and PRS-T1
|
Does a pawn shop have a legal obligation to research the background of a good? If you buy something from a pawn shop that was stolen and then pawned would you face criminal liabilities?
|
Advert | |
|
10-12-2012, 04:10 AM | #78 |
Wizard
Posts: 4,538
Karma: 264065402
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Taiwan
Device: HP Touchpad, Sony Duo 13, Lumia 920, Kobo Aura HD
|
If I remember correctly (from my law class, way back when), in Germany you cannot legally buy any stolen good, even in good faith. The only exception is money, if somebody buys something from you with stolen money the money is still yours. So if you buy a stolen good from a pawn shop you have to return the item to the original owner, but have a claim against the pawn shop owner and so on down the line.
|
10-12-2012, 06:38 AM | #79 | |
Readaholic
Posts: 5,199
Karma: 90000000
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: South Georgia
Device: Surface Pro 6 / Galaxy Tab A 8"
|
Quote:
The majority of pawn shops are honest. I had the following happen just recently. Police came to my jewelry store with a ring originally sold by us. A local pawn shop called them when two high school boys came in to pawn 8 diamond rings. They claimed it was one's mother's jewelry and he had permission to sell them. They called the police and they were questioned. Nothing could be proven at the time. The pawn shop, at the request of the police bought the items into pawn so the police would have evidence. The police took pictures of them as they left the store and later identified them from school records. One ring was in our jewelry box. My wife recognized the ring and we looked up the customer for the police. All the rings were hers. She got them back the police arrested the boys and the pawn shop was out the money they paid. They did not have to do this. They knew the items were stolen and voluntarily helped the police catch the thieves. Apache |
|
10-12-2012, 11:32 AM | #80 | |
Wizard
Posts: 1,358
Karma: 5766642
Join Date: Aug 2010
Device: Nook
|
Quote:
In general, no, but depending on the circumstances, it's possible. "Good faith" can be tricky sometimes, but sometimes, you should just know better. |
|
Advert | |
|
10-12-2012, 04:31 PM | #81 | |
King of the Bongo Drums
Posts: 1,625
Karma: 5927225
Join Date: Feb 2009
Device: Excelsior! (Strange...)
|
Quote:
When you sell an item on ebay, the amount you are paid for that item is, legally, "income". All of it. It doesn't matter whether you are in business or not. However, all of that income is not taxed. You only have to pay tax on the amount of the income in excess of what the item cost you in the first place - i.e., on the profit. So if you buy a Hawaiian shirt for $100, and later sell it on ebay for $40, you have $40 in income - but you don't owe any income tax on it since there's no profit. However, if that shirt is bid up to $150, you have $150 in income, but you will only owe income tax on the $50 profit. (Actually, you can adjust that $50 to a lower figure, based on subtracting Amazon's cut, shipping fees, etc.) The "business" angle comes in when it turns out that you sell a lot of shirts, and on some you make money, and others you don't. Basically, if you are not selling enough shirts to be "in business," you have to figure out your profit on each shirt separately, and pay tax on the profit. But you don't get to take into account the loss you have on the other shirts. OTOH, if you are in business, you get to lump all the profits and losses together, and only pay tax on the net profit. To sum up using the above figures: 1. sell one shirt on ebay, for less than it cost you = a loss of $60 and no tax. 2. sell one shirt on ebay, for more than it cost you = a profit of $50, on which you must pay tax. 3. combine 1 and 2, and if you are NOT in business = a loss on the first sale, a profit of $50 on the second sale, and you pay tax on the $50. 4. combine 1 and 2, and if you ARE in business = a loss of $60 on the first sale, a profit of $50 on the second sale, which added together means a net loss of $10, and you owe no tax. |
|
10-12-2012, 06:04 PM | #82 | |
King of the Bongo Drums
Posts: 1,625
Karma: 5927225
Join Date: Feb 2009
Device: Excelsior! (Strange...)
|
Quote:
Now I see you riding down the street on my bike. I go up to you, claim my bike, and you say you bought it in good faith. You refuse to give me my bike. I follow you home and take the bike off your porch when you go inside. Have I stolen "your" bike? Do you really think that the police should arrest me for taking my own bike, and make me give it back to you? "Good faith" has nothing to do with it. |
|
10-12-2012, 06:06 PM | #83 | |
King of the Bongo Drums
Posts: 1,625
Karma: 5927225
Join Date: Feb 2009
Device: Excelsior! (Strange...)
|
Quote:
|
|
10-12-2012, 06:10 PM | #84 | |
King of the Bongo Drums
Posts: 1,625
Karma: 5927225
Join Date: Feb 2009
Device: Excelsior! (Strange...)
|
Quote:
Your last sentence illustrates the way that the existence of insurance warps moral decisions by introducing economic considerations. |
|
10-12-2012, 06:20 PM | #85 |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 7,452
Karma: 7185064
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Linköpng, Sweden
Device: Kindle Voyage, Nexus 5, Kindle PW
|
The half value was more a rule of thumb and not a hard rule. Circumstances like the place you bought the thing also influenced it. If you bought it in a proper shop then it the price would not have mattered at all, it had always been good faith. If you bought it at Sergels Torg (a place were a lot of stolen things are sold) then over half the price might not have been enough for it to be considered good faith.
|
10-12-2012, 06:21 PM | #86 |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 7,452
Karma: 7185064
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Linköpng, Sweden
Device: Kindle Voyage, Nexus 5, Kindle PW
|
|
10-12-2012, 06:34 PM | #87 | |
Wizard
Posts: 1,358
Karma: 5766642
Join Date: Aug 2010
Device: Nook
|
Quote:
|
|
10-12-2012, 06:37 PM | #88 |
Wizard
Posts: 1,358
Karma: 5766642
Join Date: Aug 2010
Device: Nook
|
If claiming you were recovering stolen property allows you to take something from someone else's porch is an excuse, without review by the police or the courts, then whether or not you are recovering stolen property ceases to matter, only that you claim at you are.
To see see how well that works out in the real world, go review a few news stories about Florida's "stand your ground" law. |
10-12-2012, 07:00 PM | #89 | |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 7,452
Karma: 7185064
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Linköpng, Sweden
Device: Kindle Voyage, Nexus 5, Kindle PW
|
Quote:
|
|
10-12-2012, 07:29 PM | #90 | |
Wizard
Posts: 1,358
Karma: 5766642
Join Date: Aug 2010
Device: Nook
|
Quote:
You take the bike off the porch. A neighbor, after seeing you demand the bike (and not knowing what's going on) calls the cops on you. They come and arrest you, to the extent of holding you until they verify your story. Since you're not big on doing things properly, maybe you haven't properly reported the bike stolen in the first place, and they hold you for several days while they try to verify your story. If you mouth off to them, they take their time on that verifying. Even if they like you, you may well get prosecuted for trespassing, since you had no legal right to go on the other person's property even to recover your own stolen property. Even if you have, they've wasted several hours of their time, that could be spent investigation far more serious crimes, and because you took the boke off the other guy's property, you've made it considerably more difficult to prove to a jury he ever had it. Because of your actions, the thief may well get away with it. If that's not encouraging crime, then what is it? Do you really need to have someone explain to you that the way you recover stolen property is to report it stolen when it is, and if you spot it, you call the authorities? So that the court can examine the facts of the case and determine that it is, in fact, your property? Do you believe that every bicycle is so obviously unique that it couldn't possibly be the same model as what was stolen, but not the same bike? Without a review by the court, all you have is vigilantism. Your scenario offers the possibility of the thief killing you when you demand the bike back, and claiming self defense, since walking up to someone on the street and demanding something from them is probably strongarm robbery even if it's something they stole from you. Does that sound like a better option to you than simply calling the cops and going through the system? |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Government Supreme Court Decision regarding the Affordable Care Act | Dulin's Books | Other Books | 0 | 06-30-2012 03:09 PM |
US Supreme Court mentions Kindle | Madam Broshkina | Amazon Kindle | 9 | 03-26-2009 10:30 AM |
Supreme Court Rules Against Grokster | Bob Russell | Lounge | 2 | 06-28-2005 01:16 AM |