3 ms·

Seems like the person/business/entity whose goods were stolen should have insurance to cover the loss rather than putting the burden on an innocent, unknowing r

Seems like the person/business/entity whose goods were stolen should have insurance to cover the loss rather than putting the burden on an innocent, unknowing receiver of stolen goods to recover their subsequent loss in some nebulous way.

vijayr02 5y ago
The recoveries generally go to the insurance company, which has paid out the claim. This allows insurance premiums to be lower than otherwise.
wongarsu 5y ago
You can't sell what you don't own, so legally you didn't buy anything. The alternative would be the state going: you reported a theft, we apprehended the thieves and found your stolen goods. However we can't give them to you, they belong to someone else now. That's absurd for any good that isn't fungible. Imagine losing a family heirloom, your photo collection or a Picasso that way.
- aesh2Xa1 5y ago
  As you've done well to compare, the problem you describe arises only when dealing with individuals, but not with the large companies that (I presume) OP implied.
- xdrosenheim 5y ago
  > You can't sell what you don't own, so legally you didn't buy anything. An exchange of money for an item/product is a purchase. It might be confiscated by the Police and/or given to the rightful owner. If you bought a thing and have the bank-/card-statement to prove the amount, you will probably get the money back, but if it was with cash, you technically don't have proof of the amount given when purchasing.
- checkyoursudo 5y ago
  I think this is solvable. 1. Alice has something valuable stolen (goods or photos or whatever, doesn't matter) 2. Bob innocently buys Alice's stuff from Criminal Craig 3. Alice gets insurance money 4. Everything gets found out and Craig goes to jail 5. Alice gets her stuff back, but has to make Bob whole out of the insurance money (and maybe pay back the difference to the insurance company?) 6. At this point, it is then on the insurance company to try to recover whatever it can from Craig That's how I would set it up if I were king anyway.

vijayr02 5y ago

The recoveries generally go to the insurance company, which has paid out the claim. This allows insurance premiums to be lower than otherwise.

wongarsu 5y ago

You can't sell what you don't own, so legally you didn't buy anything. The alternative would be the state going: you reported a theft, we apprehended the thieves and found your stolen goods. However we can't give them to you, they belong to someone else now. That's absurd for any good that isn't fungible. Imagine losing a family heirloom, your photo collection or a Picasso that way.

aesh2Xa1 5y ago
As you've done well to compare, the problem you describe arises only when dealing with individuals, but not with the large companies that (I presume) OP implied.
xdrosenheim 5y ago
> You can't sell what you don't own, so legally you didn't buy anything. An exchange of money for an item/product is a purchase. It might be confiscated by the Police and/or given to the rightful owner. If you bought a thing and have the bank-/card-statement to prove the amount, you will probably get the money back, but if it was with cash, you technically don't have proof of the amount given when purchasing.
checkyoursudo 5y ago
I think this is solvable. 1. Alice has something valuable stolen (goods or photos or whatever, doesn't matter) 2. Bob innocently buys Alice's stuff from Criminal Craig 3. Alice gets insurance money 4. Everything gets found out and Craig goes to jail 5. Alice gets her stuff back, but has to make Bob whole out of the insurance money (and maybe pay back the difference to the insurance company?) 6. At this point, it is then on the insurance company to try to recover whatever it can from Craig That's how I would set it up if I were king anyway.