4 ms·

I'm British so I'm not fully equipped to understand in terms of the state law or effects on the ground, but isn't there plausible deniability for the aggregator

I'm British so I'm not fully equipped to understand in terms of the state law or effects on the ground, but isn't there plausible deniability for the aggregators that sell goods from individual shop lifters? If the retribution on the individual is negligible, why would they provide evidence against the folk exchanging money for stolen goods, there seems to be no motivating factor to do so. You could increase punishment for folk buying the goods, but I'm not sure what negative ramifications that might have, e.g. you're second in chain buying a stolen phone. Maybe I don't understand, but it all seems a bit bonkers to me.

ericbarrett 5y ago
> isn't there plausible deniability for the aggregators that sell goods from individual shop lifters? Quite right, and penetrating this "I dunno" defense is part of building a criminal case against the high-level traffickers. It's the job of the District Attorney (local), the Attorney General (state), and their teams of investigators; that is, the detectives. To do this they can surveil, pressure arrestees for lower-level crimes, penetrate organizations with undercover agents, and even tap phones and computers—pretty much anything you've seen in an American T.V. show, which is often dramatized but not always as far from the truth as you'd think. > You could increase punishment for folk buying the goods Do you mean the end-purchasers? Conceivably you could get some of the shopkeepers, if you can prove they knew the goods were suspect. But there's nothing criminal about buying household goods at a corner store—all the crime happened on the way there.
- mutatio 5y ago
  Yeah, I'm just posing what could be done if the law regarding low value theft is immutable, if it can't be changed, something else has to give (I haven't got a clue what).
- jaredklewis 5y ago
  > pressure arrestees for lower-level crimes I guess this particular tactic isn’t an option if you don’t prosecute low level crimes like shoplifting.
chrisseaton 5y ago
> plausible deniability For buying goods from random people instead of a distributor? No of course not. Any reasonable person would be suspicious.
- mutatio 5y ago
  Setup a second hand shop, selling "near-new" items, that'll give you 60-80% of RRP, problem solved.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    The law doesn’t work like this. The police will simply ask you ‘where do you think all these second hand items are coming from?’ and if you can’t explain they’ll say that you aren’t taking reasonable care to find out.
    - AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
      "I think they are brought to me by legal owners who no longer need them"
      - chrisseaton 5y ago
        But that doesn't pass a 'reasonable' test. A reasonable person would not believe that there is a huge supply of brand-new-condition second-hand goods.
        AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
        May be. But for criminal prosecution the fault should be proven beyond any reasonable doubt. IANAL, but proving beyond any reasonable doubt a person knew the item he's buying was stolen is more difficult than not.
        chrisseaton 5y ago

ericbarrett 5y ago

> isn't there plausible deniability for the aggregators that sell goods from individual shop lifters? Quite right, and penetrating this "I dunno" defense is part of building a criminal case against the high-level traffickers. It's the job of the District Attorney (local), the Attorney General (state), and their teams of investigators; that is, the detectives. To do this they can surveil, pressure arrestees for lower-level crimes, penetrate organizations with undercover agents, and even tap phones and computers—pretty much anything you've seen in an American T.V. show, which is often dramatized but not always as far from the truth as you'd think. > You could increase punishment for folk buying the goods Do you mean the end-purchasers? Conceivably you could get some of the shopkeepers, if you can prove they knew the goods were suspect. But there's nothing criminal about buying household goods at a corner store—all the crime happened on the way there.

mutatio 5y ago
Yeah, I'm just posing what could be done if the law regarding low value theft is immutable, if it can't be changed, something else has to give (I haven't got a clue what).
jaredklewis 5y ago
> pressure arrestees for lower-level crimes I guess this particular tactic isn’t an option if you don’t prosecute low level crimes like shoplifting.

chrisseaton 5y ago

> plausible deniability For buying goods from random people instead of a distributor? No of course not. Any reasonable person would be suspicious.

mutatio 5y ago
Setup a second hand shop, selling "near-new" items, that'll give you 60-80% of RRP, problem solved.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  The law doesn’t work like this. The police will simply ask you ‘where do you think all these second hand items are coming from?’ and if you can’t explain they’ll say that you aren’t taking reasonable care to find out.
  - AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
    "I think they are brought to me by legal owners who no longer need them"
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      But that doesn't pass a 'reasonable' test. A reasonable person would not believe that there is a huge supply of brand-new-condition second-hand goods.
      - AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
        May be. But for criminal prosecution the fault should be proven beyond any reasonable doubt. IANAL, but proving beyond any reasonable doubt a person knew the item he's buying was stolen is more difficult than not.
        chrisseaton 5y ago