22

Is the original owner entitled to their property back while I am entitled to recover the sum paid for it from party A, or does the item somehow become rightfully mine, or... how does this all work?

Ohan
  • 777
  • 2
  • 5
  • 11
  • 2
    Sometimes, party A is the police! One way that can happen is through the auction of goods seized through police raids on criminal activity. – Paul Jan 11 '22 at 00:06
  • 4
    If party A hasn't spent the proceeds, would that make the answer obvious to you? If so, and if party A has spent the proceeds, why do you think that would change who's entitled to what from whom? Money is replaceable. I can't think of any scenario where spending money you owe someone would change anything in the eyes of the law (if you're unable to return the money in a timely fashion, then different legal measures may be taken to deal with that). – NotThatGuy Jan 11 '22 at 10:59
  • What happens if party C buys the item from party B (previously me) after party B had bought the item from party A, which party A had obtained improperly (eg through theft) from the rightful owner, party O? Presumably then O is still entitled to the item back from party C, and party A ought to get charged for stealing it, so C would lose out on the item, but what would be the rest of the fallout/resolution? – Ohan Jan 11 '22 at 11:01
  • I see, that's a great point, @NotThatGuy. – Ohan Jan 11 '22 at 11:02
  • 1
    Just avoid buying stuff at parties. – copper.hat Jan 12 '22 at 06:02
  • 1
    @NotThatGuy There should be some provision in the law for not wasting time on minor cases. Of course one can sue for stealing a single dollar, but if not, I would not expect the police drops other cases to work on that. But then, you could have stolen 1 dollar from a bank, by collecting rounding errors smaller than cents from thousands of transactions. – Volker Siegel Jan 13 '22 at 05:39

2 Answers2

69

The "original" owner remains the only legal one.

Party A goes to jail.

You get entitled to recover the money from A (unless you knew that the item was stolen — in which case the money will go to the government and you may go to jail with A).

Greendrake
  • 27,460
  • 4
  • 63
  • 126
24

Expanding on Greendrake's answer, in the UK and many other countries, the basic rule is that you cannot transfer ownership, if you don't have that right in the first place.

There are some few kinds of things where this rule may not hold, depending on what was stolen and how, where/how sold, and which country. Intangible assets like stocks or rights, could be an exception in some places. Land, and rights in land,could be an exception in others. Most sales that took place in a venue that was a traditional public marketplace used to be an odd but true exception in the UK from memory. But that's the basic rule for most common things.

  • If A steals from someone (V), A doesn't become an owner in law. Just a keeper. A may well be in possession of your diamond ring, but they aren't the owner of it. The original person V is still the owner. That's why lost property is returned not kept. It belongs with the owner.

  • When you "buy" the ring off A, A has cheated you. A has implied that A was the owner, and as owner, gives you ownership in return for money. But as A was never the owner, A never actually gave you ownership. You were fooled.

  • What you now have is mere possession of the ring, not ownership. That's all. You are no more its owner than if you found it lying in the street, because A never in fact transferred ownership to you, because they didn't have it themself. V is still its owner, that hasn't changed. As owner, V is entitled to tell you, you must give them the ring back. In fact if you don't, you may be legally committing a crime - keeping someone else's property once you know it is stolen goods. So you have nothing - no ring, no money.

  • What you do have, is a right to go back to A, and say "You deceived me about that ring. You represented that you had the right to sell it, but you didn't. Give me my money back". And to sue them if they don't. But that requires finding A, being able and willing to sue A, and if you win, being able to get your winnings off A somehow.

  • Update: Note that if you bought the ring using a credit card, PayPal, finance plan, or something else that guarantees the validity of the purchase or acted as a financer for the purchase, they may have a legal duty to repay you, as well, and they are probably easier to get money back from, than A. So that's realistically your better route to a refund. As above, * they * now need to get their money back from A. That's their problem and they could have more chance of success than you do.

This can work in a chain.
It also doesn't change things, if someone knew, or is an innocent victim.

If A stole it, fenced it to B, who advertised it and sold it to C, who gave it in good faith as a gift to D, then all those transanctions are null and void.

A could never give ownership to B. Therefore B never being owner, could never give ownership to C, and C never being an owner could never give ownership to D.

So the ring still goes back to V. D has nothing. C was an innocent victim but still has nothing unless they can claim off B. And so on.

Stilez
  • 3,189
  • 10
  • 24
  • 6
    What if e.g. X steals a 1kg block of marble from Y, who sells it to Z and then spends a month carving it into a figurine. Would Z have the right to demand that Y accept a block of marble of comparable quality to the original, while retaining his property interest in the figurine? – supercat Jan 10 '22 at 22:51
  • 5
    I'm not a lawyer, but logic says, what if you wake up and Banksy painted a mural on your concrete block garage wall (as he apparently does, now and then). The wall is yours - does banksy obtain a right to cut down and take your wall for its art value and replace with an equivalent wall at his own expense? No. Does banksy retain some kind of ownership interest in the mural? Don't know. But the situation is legally the same, I'm sure of it. The fact is was stolen or not, vs just artistically modified without consent, it's probably the sane outcome legally. My guess. – Stilez Jan 10 '22 at 23:46
  • 17
    @supercat Where the item stolen is a commodity, simply paying the value of the item is normally acceptable. Normally it needs a court injunction to make you give back the item or an equivalent value, and the court can decide whether that's OK. – Graham Jan 11 '22 at 00:02
  • @Graham -I didn't know that! Thanks!! – Stilez Jan 11 '22 at 00:54
  • @Stilez Did you notice how much is included in those "few kinds of things where this rule may not hold…"?

    Intangible assets like stocks or rights; land; most sales made in a traditional public marketplace.

    What does that leave?

     – Robbie Goodwin Jan 11 '22 at 02:34
  • what does it mean to 'fence' something? – Ohan Jan 11 '22 at 11:03
  • 1
    @Ohan - https://dallaspolice.net/communitys/criminalFence – Stilez Jan 11 '22 at 11:42
  • 3
    @RobbieGoodwin - almost all regular tangible everyday items. The intangibles simply come under different laws if not this one, for historical reasons or because they are technically better suited to different wordings. (For example one can't actually steal land, because a specific plot of land stays where it is, and can't be moved. And a land title is an entry in a land register, so * that * can't be "stolen" either, technically. So technically, one might say, one can only defraud/misrepresent the title to land, or unlawfully exert control over it, but not "steal" it.. That kind of thing.) – Stilez Jan 11 '22 at 11:50
  • @supercat Trover is a form of lawsuit in common-law countries for recovery of damages for wrongful taking of personal property. Trover belongs to a series of remedies for such wrongful taking, its distinctive feature being recovery only for the value of whatever was taken, not for the recovery of the property itself. – Simon Crase Jan 11 '22 at 21:07
  • 1
    @Stilez I think that at least Banksy would retain the copyright on what was painted on the garage wall. Which could end up with you being able to paint back the graffiti, but perhaps not to sell a photo of it (depending on the local laws, if it would be covered by Freedom of Panorama law, etc). Plus the obvious drawback that in order to use the owner, Banksy would need to identify himself, perhaps starting by admitting tresspassing into your property, to begin with, plus maybe it can be argued Ex turpi causa non oritur actio. Interesting scenario, indeed. – Ángel Jan 12 '22 at 00:07
  • @RobbieGoodwin - that's way, way off topic, and sounds like you want statistics for stuff stats probably may not exist for. This isn't a stats question and that's a comment that feels like you want me to argue things I'm not here to argue. If these are meaningful questions, or you are confused or curious about the examples, ask separately. If you arent kidding about wanting to know a percentage, ask a crime statistician or something. To me, these seem like off topic enough to prune. – Stilez Jan 12 '22 at 01:13
  • 2
    @Angel, it was purely the easiest "everyday + accessible" example I could think of, of a third party modifying your property unconsented, and in a way that added extra value or personal rights implication for the third party. People dont usually steal stuff and creatively as an artist improve it. I figured a more accessible example might be useful, is all :) Anything beyond that, is getting off topic. But yes, interesting indeed! – Stilez Jan 12 '22 at 01:16
  • @SimonCrase: The linked article seems to be focused on situations where someone accepts an item for safekeeping and fails to return it in suitable condition. Are you saying the same principles apply to someone who receives stolen property? Someone who purchases property in good faith would generally have no obligation to maintain it. If someone buys some items at a thrift store for use in a film or theatrical production in which they will be destroyed, should they be liable to the original owner for more than the price they paid [which they assumed in good faith to be fair market value]? – supercat Jan 12 '22 at 17:51
  • Update added: one bullet point, no other changes to answer. – Stilez Jan 12 '22 at 18:49
  • 2
    @supercat Trover is a type of lawsuit, it isn't a legal principle: the existence of trover does not imply that someone is liable in the manner that you describe, it merely means that someone can begin an action in trover, even if it is unlikely to succeed. Trover has been used to receive stolen goods: it was the basis of the claim in Armory vs. Delamirie. There are parallels with your block of marble... – Simon Crase Jan 12 '22 at 21:15
  • What if you take all reasonable measures of due dilligence when buying the item off A to ensure that it is not stolen? I mean let's suppose A offers you an expensive piece of machinery and you suspect its stolen, so you ask to see a paper trail of who he purchased it from himself and so on and so forth. Is there any reasonable threshold duty of care standard that you could satisfy so that you could be protected in case you were wrong? I mean what if you followed this threshold and the item was a trailer and you made your home on it for 5 months and then suddenly you find out that it was 1/ – Ohan Jan 15 '22 at 00:49
  • ...(cont.) stolen. And now you have to give the item back and be inconvenienced again by moving all of your stuff off of the trailer. But you foresaw this scenario and wanted to do everything in your power to guard against it, so you asked A to see the title and his bill of lawful purchase, and he shows it to you but it turns out to be falsified. How could you have possibly protected yourself any better than this beyond eliminating all reasonable doubt, if one will? Is there no protection for you, say 6 months down the line, once you've already made yourself all comfy, in this situation? – Ohan Jan 15 '22 at 00:50
  • @Stilez if you see anything I said as "off topic" why not explain how?

    If you think I asked for statistics, how was that?

    I don't want anyone to "argue" anything. I do hope you might justify what you said. Will you?

    If you're confused or curious about any of this, do ask separately. I'm neither confused nor curious… I'm simply and clearly asking you to justify your claims. Can you, or not?

    If you aren't kidding about what you Posted, find a crime statistician or such like for justification.

    Failing that, why not back off?

     – Robbie Goodwin Jan 15 '22 at 01:26
  • @Ohan - there isn't usually "protection". For some things (cars, real estate) insurance for title is an option. For most things, as described in the answer, its either too bad, or make sure if it might matter, that some credit card or finance provider is there to take the hit if there's a problem. Doesn't matter if you checked the documents, made yourself at home, whatever (in England and Wales anyway) - if they're falsified you take the hit if you can't get it refunded by A, unless some financer, insurer or professional can be found who's liable as well for some reason. – Stilez Jan 15 '22 at 04:08
  • @RobbieGoodwin - did you notice your original comment got moderator pruned, and doesn't seem to be showing in the public thread any more? Like I said, way, way off topic. Let's drop it. Ask your own question if you need to. – Stilez Jan 15 '22 at 04:11
  • @Stilez Could you go back to the Question which, as Posted, was and remains flawed? Who with any interest in law could overlook the fact that what Party A does with the proceeds is wholly irrelevant? Nothing in the exposition changes that. The owner - "original" is a red herring - is entitled to the property. The "buyer" is entitled to recover the sum paid from Party A. Nothing in any way becomes rightfully Buyer's. How could anyone but Party A's thuggish enforcers make that difficult? What justification d'you think Party A's thugs would have in law? Could you stick to the Question? – Robbie Goodwin Jan 20 '22 at 22:34