5 ms·

Isn't the point that you don't just get to decide whether or not the cash is legally yours? So you might have possession of the box of cash, but might not be th

Isn't the point that you don't just get to decide whether or not the cash is legally yours? So you might have possession of the box of cash, but might not be the owner, for example.

bko 5y ago
Sure, but that money you stole buried in your backyard is still yours. The rightful owner cannot just steal it back. Similarly if it wasn't yours, you wouldn't have to pay taxes on it and the IRS still expects taxes on stolen property https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/irs-taxpayers-stolen-items-illegal-income/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/irs-taxpayers-stolen-items...
- RandomLensman 5y ago
  Not a lawyer, but I think in a lot of jurisdictions the money still belongs to person it was stolen from, i.e., you only have possession, but don't own it - so not yours.
  - polynomial 5y ago
    And yet you still have to pay taxes on it.
- littlestymaar 5y ago
  It's “your” the same way an Ikea shop is all “your” if you manage to get lock-in during the night[1]. Sure you have it, but if the authorities ever know that you have it you're screwed: you don't own it. Btw, the IRS rule you're referring is just a hack to be able to at least charge people for tax fraud if the police cannot prove that you were involved in criminal activities. (Like how Al Capone got eventually caught for tax fraud). [1]: https://7news.com.au/technology/tiktok/tiktok-video-of-logan-ikea-challenge-by-teens-sparks-illegal-trespassing-warning-c-2380533 https://7news.com.au/technology/tiktok/tiktok-video-of-logan...
- yellowstuff 5y ago
  > Sure, but that money you stole buried in your backyard is still yours. In what sense? > The rightful owner cannot just steal it back. The rightful owner doesn't get any special rights, so they can't trespass to get their property back. A policeman could get it back for them, though. If it's just lying there they can take it back themselves. I've heard stories where people find their stolen property on Craigslist, meet with the thief, and steal it back without using force. That's fine. > Similarly if it wasn't yours, you wouldn't have to pay taxes on it Ownership is a tricky concept. There are many rights and responsibilities associated with ownership. Owning a bike carries a different set of rights and responsibilities from owning a house. Paying taxes on something is an obligation typically associated with ownership, but since stealing something does not create many of the other legal rights associated with ownership I don't think it's sufficient to say that it demonstrates that it's "yours." Also, of course, no one actually pays the taxes.
  - bko 5y ago
    > A policeman could get it back for them, though. What cop do you know would just steal property back for you? This a matter for courts. > I've heard stories where people find their stolen property on Craigslist, meet with the thief, and steal it back without using force. That's fine. What happens on Craigslist encounters is not exactly common law.
    - vageli 5y ago
      > Florida’s theft laws make it clear that theft of any type is illegal, but recently one Florida court has put a different spin on the situation. In the case of T.D.W. v. State, 42 So. 3d 959 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), the juvenile defendant (FYI, juvenile names are always abbreviated) was convicted of Robbery because he forcefully approached a victim to retrieve his cell phone. T.D.W. testified at trial that he had a good faith belief that the victim possessed his cell phone, so he was going to take it back. At this point, it’s important to note that, technically speaking, a theft charge arises out of an ‘intent to deprive an owner of property’. So, how could a theft occur if the victim of the robbery wasn’t actually the ‘owner’ of the cell phone? The court in T.D.W. threw out T.D.W.’s conviction, reasoning that “a well-founded belief in one’s right to the allegedly stolen property constitutes a complete defense to a charge of theft”, as per a prior court ruling in Thomas v. State, 526 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). https://jgcrimlaw.com/blog/someone-stole-my-stuff-and-im-gonna-steal-it-back-is-that-legal/ https://jgcrimlaw.com/blog/someone-stole-my-stuff-and-im-gon...
yanmaani 5y ago
Yes, and the point the parent is making is that it isn't a very good one.
thebean11 5y ago
Ok so then why even have cash? Why not just write IOU's and let the legal system decide? If I'm accepting cash there's no difference, as I don't know whether or not you legally own the cash. Obviously, the answer is that cash is a good "first layer". The legal system is there to resolve disputes, not facilitate transactions. Reversibility on a technical level and legal ownership are totally different things, it seems like many folks conflate them.
- RandomLensman 5y ago
  Depending on where you are, the legal system might already block or complicate larger cash transactions, i.e., legal system already intervening on the transactions level.
  - thebean11 5y ago
    Complicate how though? Can they backdoor the transfer to reverse it (or can another party do this for them)? Or only try to force the receiver to send the funds back with threats of punishment / physically take the funds? My point is that those two things are fundamentally different.
    - RandomLensman 5y ago
      You might need to establish ID, source of funds, etc., or beyond a certain limit cash transactions might just not be legal. Failure to comply might then lead to all sorts of unpleasantness.
      - thebean11 5y ago
        Yup of course, what's your point though? I don't think this conflicts with what I'm saying.
        RandomLensman 5y ago
        My point was that the legal system is not just there for disputes but it also expresses things about what/how transactions should be done, i.e. it facilitates some and blocks others.
Spooky23 5y ago
Cash is a bearer instrument, but your duties as a custodian of someone else’s cash is another matter. If I leave a box with cash in your care and you steal it or are negligent, I can seek relief in the courts. If I win and you refuse to pay, the sheriff will seize assets and sell them to satisfy the order of the court.

Isn't the point that you don't just get to decide whether or not the cash is legally yours? So you might have possession of the box of cash, but might not be the owner, for example.

bko 5y ago

Sure, but that money you stole buried in your backyard is still yours. The rightful owner cannot just steal it back. Similarly if it wasn't yours, you wouldn't have to pay taxes on it and the IRS still expects taxes on stolen property https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/irs-taxpayers-stolen-items-illegal-income/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/irs-taxpayers-stolen-items...

RandomLensman 5y ago
Not a lawyer, but I think in a lot of jurisdictions the money still belongs to person it was stolen from, i.e., you only have possession, but don't own it - so not yours.
- polynomial 5y ago
  And yet you still have to pay taxes on it.
littlestymaar 5y ago
It's “your” the same way an Ikea shop is all “your” if you manage to get lock-in during the night[1]. Sure you have it, but if the authorities ever know that you have it you're screwed: you don't own it. Btw, the IRS rule you're referring is just a hack to be able to at least charge people for tax fraud if the police cannot prove that you were involved in criminal activities. (Like how Al Capone got eventually caught for tax fraud). [1]: https://7news.com.au/technology/tiktok/tiktok-video-of-logan-ikea-challenge-by-teens-sparks-illegal-trespassing-warning-c-2380533 https://7news.com.au/technology/tiktok/tiktok-video-of-logan...
yellowstuff 5y ago
> Sure, but that money you stole buried in your backyard is still yours. In what sense? > The rightful owner cannot just steal it back. The rightful owner doesn't get any special rights, so they can't trespass to get their property back. A policeman could get it back for them, though. If it's just lying there they can take it back themselves. I've heard stories where people find their stolen property on Craigslist, meet with the thief, and steal it back without using force. That's fine. > Similarly if it wasn't yours, you wouldn't have to pay taxes on it Ownership is a tricky concept. There are many rights and responsibilities associated with ownership. Owning a bike carries a different set of rights and responsibilities from owning a house. Paying taxes on something is an obligation typically associated with ownership, but since stealing something does not create many of the other legal rights associated with ownership I don't think it's sufficient to say that it demonstrates that it's "yours." Also, of course, no one actually pays the taxes.
- bko 5y ago
  > A policeman could get it back for them, though. What cop do you know would just steal property back for you? This a matter for courts. > I've heard stories where people find their stolen property on Craigslist, meet with the thief, and steal it back without using force. That's fine. What happens on Craigslist encounters is not exactly common law.
  - vageli 5y ago
    > Florida’s theft laws make it clear that theft of any type is illegal, but recently one Florida court has put a different spin on the situation. In the case of T.D.W. v. State, 42 So. 3d 959 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), the juvenile defendant (FYI, juvenile names are always abbreviated) was convicted of Robbery because he forcefully approached a victim to retrieve his cell phone. T.D.W. testified at trial that he had a good faith belief that the victim possessed his cell phone, so he was going to take it back. At this point, it’s important to note that, technically speaking, a theft charge arises out of an ‘intent to deprive an owner of property’. So, how could a theft occur if the victim of the robbery wasn’t actually the ‘owner’ of the cell phone? The court in T.D.W. threw out T.D.W.’s conviction, reasoning that “a well-founded belief in one’s right to the allegedly stolen property constitutes a complete defense to a charge of theft”, as per a prior court ruling in Thomas v. State, 526 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). https://jgcrimlaw.com/blog/someone-stole-my-stuff-and-im-gonna-steal-it-back-is-that-legal/ https://jgcrimlaw.com/blog/someone-stole-my-stuff-and-im-gon...

yanmaani 5y ago

Yes, and the point the parent is making is that it isn't a very good one.

thebean11 5y ago

Ok so then why even have cash? Why not just write IOU's and let the legal system decide? If I'm accepting cash there's no difference, as I don't know whether or not you legally own the cash. Obviously, the answer is that cash is a good "first layer". The legal system is there to resolve disputes, not facilitate transactions. Reversibility on a technical level and legal ownership are totally different things, it seems like many folks conflate them.

RandomLensman 5y ago
Depending on where you are, the legal system might already block or complicate larger cash transactions, i.e., legal system already intervening on the transactions level.
- thebean11 5y ago
  Complicate how though? Can they backdoor the transfer to reverse it (or can another party do this for them)? Or only try to force the receiver to send the funds back with threats of punishment / physically take the funds? My point is that those two things are fundamentally different.
  - RandomLensman 5y ago
    You might need to establish ID, source of funds, etc., or beyond a certain limit cash transactions might just not be legal. Failure to comply might then lead to all sorts of unpleasantness.
    - thebean11 5y ago
      Yup of course, what's your point though? I don't think this conflicts with what I'm saying.
      - RandomLensman 5y ago
        My point was that the legal system is not just there for disputes but it also expresses things about what/how transactions should be done, i.e. it facilitates some and blocks others.

Spooky23 5y ago

Cash is a bearer instrument, but your duties as a custodian of someone else’s cash is another matter. If I leave a box with cash in your care and you steal it or are negligent, I can seek relief in the courts. If I win and you refuse to pay, the sheriff will seize assets and sell them to satisfy the order of the court.