Lost iPhone story getting ugly
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: iPhone ringtones
Next: Non-Flash flashing ads
From: smurf on 29 Apr 2010 01:40 Rowland McDonnell wrote: > smurf <smurf(a)smurf.com> wrote: > > [snip] > >> In England, theft requires the intention to permanently remove it >> from its rightful owner. > > And in Wales - comes out of English common law, which also applies > (with different modifications) in the USA. > >> I dont think that applies to the website owner, but the fact >> that the finder sold it on to him, suggests that the finder did >> indulge in theft, and that website owner knowingly bought goods from >> someone who was not the owner of the device. > > The story is that the iPhone was lost and found, and the fee paid was > a finder's fee. > > If so, it's 100% legit, the whole business. > >> Handling stolen goods is quite a serious >> offence more so then the theft (and easier to prove). > > You've got to prove theft first, so it's not easier to prove handling > stolen goods. You dont have to prove an individual is guilty of theft to prove handling stolen goods. Handling stolen goods is a much much easier crime to prosecute and requires only dishonest acquisition, one can even be charged with handling stolen goods, if the goods themselves are not stolen (but you believe them to be). > In this case, the iPhone wasn't nicked, merely lost and recovered. > > Rowland.
From: D.M. Procida on 29 Apr 2010 03:06 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: > > > Pd <peterd.news(a)gmail.invalid> wrote: > > > > > <http://gizmodo.com/5524843/police-seize-jason-chens-computers> > > > > > > Police raid Jason Chen's house, take computers and drives > > > > Good. I hope he is charged, tried and convicted of receiving stolen > > property. He sounds like a genuine sleazeball. > > Where is the /evidence/ that the property was stolen in the first place? It wasn't stolen in the first place, it was found. But the parties who bought and sold it both knew whom it belonged to, and both used it to profit at the expense of its owner. At a certain point it stopped being merely something that had been found, and became something that they were illegitimately keeping from its owner. I hope that counts as handling stolen property. Daniele
From: Rowland McDonnell on 29 Apr 2010 13:12
smurf <smurf(a)smurf.com> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell wrote: [snip] > >> Handling stolen goods is quite a serious > >> offence more so then the theft (and easier to prove). > > > > You've got to prove theft first, so it's not easier to prove handling > > stolen goods. > > You dont have to prove an individual is guilty of theft to prove handling > stolen goods. Handling stolen goods is a much much easier crime to prosecute > and requires only dishonest acquisition, one can even be charged with > handling stolen goods, if the goods themselves are not stolen (but you > believe them to be). [snip] Really? That's not how I've had the law on the subject explained to me in the past, by a Met copper. Then again, it was in the early Thatcher years, whenever it was I heard the explanation. Things change... Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking |