5 ms·

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
        My understanding is that they just have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you did not take enough care because that’s an offence by itself. You have a civic duty to think if something may have been stolen. They don’t have to prove what you were intending to do.
        native_samples 5y ago
        Is that correct? That is true for certain very specific types of crime like money laundering, where bankers are expected to prove to themselves that the source of funds is legitimate. I don't believe such requirements apply to literally everyone, as such supply chain investigations can be arbitrarily expensive.
        chrisseaton 5y ago
        I believe it's correct. They're not expecting normal people to do supply chain analysis, but they are expecting people who see a ton of second hand drug-store products in a bag in a dodgy warehouse run by someone who doesn't really seem like a drug-store distributor to say 'wait a second that might be not 100% legitimate'. It's not an unusual concept in common law. It's like manslaughter - you can have had absolutely not intention whatsoever to kill or harm someone, but still be held responsible for their death because you weren't careful enough.
- mutatio 5y ago
  So you're saying the onus is on the buyer? Is it a special case for commercial outfits, or could it effect eBay buyers?
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    Yes there is a legal responsibility for the buyer to use some common sense to think about whether items are being supplied to them legally.
  - raincom 5y ago
    Yes and No. No, if one bought three Neiman Marcus shirts from such a source. Yes, if one has bought many shirts, bags, laptops from these people; even in this case, prosecutors don't go after the fencers(middlemen) directly. They bust the small guys, who flip for plea deals. Then these 'thieves' wear the wire and sell stuff to these fencers; this is how prosecutors collect solid evidence to convict fencers.
raincom 5y ago
Some pawn shop in Santa Clara did something like that. He got busted. https://patch.com/california/losgatos/san-jose-pawn-shop-owner-arrested-700k-alleged-stolen-property-police https://patch.com/california/losgatos/san-jose-pawn-shop-own...

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
      My understanding is that they just have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you did not take enough care because that’s an offence by itself. You have a civic duty to think if something may have been stolen. They don’t have to prove what you were intending to do.
      - native_samples 5y ago
        Is that correct? That is true for certain very specific types of crime like money laundering, where bankers are expected to prove to themselves that the source of funds is legitimate. I don't believe such requirements apply to literally everyone, as such supply chain investigations can be arbitrarily expensive.
        chrisseaton 5y ago
        I believe it's correct. They're not expecting normal people to do supply chain analysis, but they are expecting people who see a ton of second hand drug-store products in a bag in a dodgy warehouse run by someone who doesn't really seem like a drug-store distributor to say 'wait a second that might be not 100% legitimate'. It's not an unusual concept in common law. It's like manslaughter - you can have had absolutely not intention whatsoever to kill or harm someone, but still be held responsible for their death because you weren't careful enough.
mutatio 5y ago
So you're saying the onus is on the buyer? Is it a special case for commercial outfits, or could it effect eBay buyers?
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  Yes there is a legal responsibility for the buyer to use some common sense to think about whether items are being supplied to them legally.
- raincom 5y ago
  Yes and No. No, if one bought three Neiman Marcus shirts from such a source. Yes, if one has bought many shirts, bags, laptops from these people; even in this case, prosecutors don't go after the fencers(middlemen) directly. They bust the small guys, who flip for plea deals. Then these 'thieves' wear the wire and sell stuff to these fencers; this is how prosecutors collect solid evidence to convict fencers.

raincom 5y ago

Some pawn shop in Santa Clara did something like that. He got busted. https://patch.com/california/losgatos/san-jose-pawn-shop-owner-arrested-700k-alleged-stolen-property-police https://patch.com/california/losgatos/san-jose-pawn-shop-own...