It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Couples good luck rewarded with JAIL TIME

page: 1
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Well this one really sucks!


A lucky couple bought a used suitcase from a Salvation Army store and found it stuffed with cash inside the lining when they got home.

Like any normal people, they then put the money in the bank, thankful for their good fortune.

Then the cops showed up and took them to jail.




$100,000 left stashed inside Salvation Army store suitcase

Police have charged a couple with "theft by finding" after they forked out a few dollars for a second-hand suitcase at a Melbourne Salvation Army Store that had up to $100,000 hidden in its lining.

The suitcase was donated to the Salvos in Beaconsfield by a woman who did not know her husband had hidden the cash in the bag's lining.

The distraught man contacted the Salvation Army last Tuesday in a bid to retrieve the suitcase but it had already been sold, Salvation Army spokesman Major Brad Halse said.

"He said his family had cleaned out a room and donated some goods. One of the items was a suitcase with a very significant amount of money in it," Major Halse said.

"I guess sometimes people store things of value in unusual places."

He said he could not reveal the exact amount of cash, other than to say it was in the "tens of thousands of dollars".

Late this afternoon, Victoria Police revealed they had charged a man, 44, and a woman, 34 and that they had recovered most of the money,which had been put in different bank accounts.

Sydney Morning Herald



Theft by finding! What the heck kinda stupid law is that!


IMO, if some idiot is dumb enough to donate a suitcase full of cash, that person no longer has any claim to the money that was left inside.



[edit on 4/7/10 by FortAnthem]




posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


That's actually an interesting "case" to deliberate.
On the one hand, if I was the guy who lost the suitcase, I'd be screaming bloody murder until I got it back.
However, if I were the one to acquire said suitcase, I certainly wouldn't put it in the f'n bank.
Yeah, I'd want the government to know I was nipple-deep in cold hard cash...



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matthew Dark
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


That's actually an interesting "case" to deliberate.
On the one hand, if I was the guy who lost the suitcase, I'd be screaming bloody murder until I got it back.
However, if I were the one to acquire said suitcase, I certainly wouldn't put it in the f'n bank.
Yeah, I'd want the government to know I was nipple-deep in cold hard cash...


yeah, you're right.

The smart guy would've hidden the cash and then claimed there never was any in the suitcase.

I guess this couple was just so darn happy, they weren't thinking strait. Besides, who would've thought finding money could be against the law?



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Theft by Finding, if upheld in a case like this basically seems to mean every time you find a dollar on the street, picking it up makes you a criminal.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by eNumbra
Theft by Finding, if upheld in a case like this basically seems to mean every time you find a dollar on the street, picking it up makes you a criminal.



Unless it is a dollar worth $100,000 I don't see how you come to that conclusion.

You don't need to steal an item from the actual person for it to be theft. If you have an item that isn't yours then it isn't yours, it's pretty obvious, it doesn't matter how you got it.

If you find a car on the side of the road with no number plates, you can't take it home and start driving it like you own it. If you find a bike you can't take it home and ride it. The same goes for money and anything else worth a substantial value either $$ or sentimental.

Since they put the money straight into their bank they obviously had no plans on handing it into the police or returning it to the Salvos store.

I'm not surprised by the charge. What I am surprised about is somebody lining their briefcase with $100,00 and then forgetting about it and donating it to a Salvos.


[edit on 7/4/10 by Nventual]



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nventual

Originally posted by eNumbra
Theft by Finding, if upheld in a case like this basically seems to mean every time you find a dollar on the street, picking it up makes you a criminal.



Unless it is a dollar worth $100,000 I don't see how you come to that conclusion.

You don't need to steal an item from the actual person for it to be theft. If you have an item that isn't yours then it isn't yours, it's pretty obvious, it doesn't matter how you got it.


Is it?

Woman donated a briefcase filled with $100,000, and a couple bought it for a couple of bucks.

Woman who donated it never looked in it. Employees at the store didn't look in it. Sounds like thrifty shopping combined with a bit of astronomical luck. When the briefcase was donated it, and any contents became property of the store, until it was bought whereby it becomes property of the buyer.

Unless theres a law that specifically states otherwise, the "money's owners" (which is BS to begin with)are sh* out of luck.


+5 more 
posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Nventual
 


The people who lost the money turned over ownership of the suitcare to the Salvation Army which then sold it to the couple.

They just didn't take something that didn't belong to them. They BOUGHT IT.

It's like if you were to buy a painting at a yard sale and later found out it was a masterpiece worth millions. Would it be considered theft then?



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Nventual
 


Actually, I'm thinking you are incorrect.
They bought the suitcase...therefore, they own the suitcase, and all of it's contents, hidden or otherwise.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 07:43 PM
link   
I don't know Aussie law but it doesn't seem to apply here. They did not "find" the money and fail to turn it in like a dollar in the street. They bought a suitcase containing the money, when they paid for the suitcase at the agreed price it and all it's content became their property lawfully. The money and the suitcase belongs to the them and should be returned to them.

Now if they are ethical the might consider giving the money back to the poor guy who lost it inadvertently however lawfully it is theirs! Some shyster attorney could probably argue that case for them and get half that money for himself too.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 07:44 PM
link   
OK, man hides 100K in a suitcase. Woman doesn't know and donates it. How can she give away what isn't hers? It's HIS money.

Secondly, don't you think that if you found 100K that someone would be looking for it?



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
OK, man hides 100K in a suitcase. Woman doesn't know and donates it. How can she give away what isn't hers? It's HIS money.
She was his husband, so I believe it would be considered joint property.

[edit on 4/7/2010 by eNumbra]



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by FortAnthem
reply to post by Nventual
 


The people who lost the money turned over ownership of the suitcare to the Salvation Army which then sold it to the couple.

They just didn't take something that didn't belong to them. They BOUGHT IT.

It's like if you were to buy a painting at a yard sale and later found out it was a masterpiece worth millions. Would it be considered theft then?


I think you make an excellent point with the masterpiece painting being bought at a yard sale, which would be more akin to a happy accident than finding $100,000 dollars in a second hand suitcase. Unless there is some kind of note with that money wishing the finder well, while I wouldn't call it theft, if the buyer of the suitcase kept the money, I would question the ethics of such a thing. Buying a cheap painting at a garage sale that turns out to be a valuable painting by a renowned artist, and that profiting off of that luck is fine, and these sort of serendipitous events do happen, but finding a large sum of cash hidden in a suitcase is not the same thing.

It would have been, in my humble opinion, proper and correct to contact the second hand store and ask about the person who sold the suitcase and if they might contact that person explaining that they think they found something in the suitcase that the previous owner might want returned, then leaving a name and contact number to wait and see. I don't think ethics demand they should have gone straight to the police and handed the money over, but at least making an attempt to return the money to its rightful owner would have been the proper thing to do.

If ethics is not an issue, then of course, depositing the money in the bank was just plain stupid.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
OK, man hides 100K in a suitcase. Woman doesn't know and donates it. How can she give away what isn't hers? It's HIS money.

Secondly, don't you think that if you found 100K that someone would be looking for it?


If they're married it belongs to both of them and she can give it away.


It's the husband's stupid fault for not telling his old lady where he hid the money.

She should be asking him why he was hiding that money from her in the 1st place. I'm suprised the Oz version of the IRS isn't all over that couple for hiding that much cash.

How did they earn it (drugs?)? Was it declared as income on their tax returns?

If this was the US the couple that hid the money in the suitcase would have some serious 'splainin to do.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   
I just sent a text to my law-student girlfriend.
As soon as she gets back to me, I'll shed some light on how this would be handled here in the States.
I'll be back.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by FortAnthem
If they're married it belongs to both of them and she can give it away.


OK, ask her how she feels about it now?



It's the husband's stupid fault for not telling his old lady where he hid the money.


Why? You don't have secrets?


How did they earn it (drugs?)? Was it declared as income on their tax returns?


Irrelevant and irrelevant as far as this case is involved. The couple that lost the money and those that kept it.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 08:00 PM
link   
This is ridiculous.

If one finds money in property they purchased, it should be theirs, period. To suggest otherwise is juvenile. It would be different if the item was stolen, or purchased in an unofficial, nefarious manner, but it wasn't.

Entrapment should apply here, because anyone could put anything in sold items, then falsely accuse the buyer of theft or possession.

Not only is it a stupid law, that you should declare your findings, but it's irresponsible as a law. You're telling me that if you go to your local police station and declare you found $50,000, that the information would be completely safe and secure and that every police officer in the world is going to do the right thing? What if that officer accidentally tells his friend, who tells another friend, until someone approaches the police and says they "forgot money in a briefcase" and can verify the information based on hearsay. Etc.

The police get enough money from search and seizure, and there is enough fraud to worry about. If people find money, they should be able to keep it unless there is an already OPEN CASE that says that amount of money is lost. Otherwise, if the unclaimed money is reported, the information is immediately compromised and nearly anyone is liable to claim it as theirs.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Matthew Dark
 


According to her:
"If property is lost or misplaced and discovered by a third party, the original owner is still entitled to those objects. If property has been abandoned or if it can be considered 'treasure trove', the finder is entitled to those objects."

So, she says that, by the law here in the States, it's pretty much a shoe in that the husband would be entitled to have his money back.
There you go folks.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


The problem with this couple is lack of communication. The husband didn't tell the wife where he hid the money, if she even knew it existed, and the wife never told the husband what she was donating to the Salvation Army.


I'm a strong believer that a person has to live with the consequences of their actions and that stupidity is it's own reward.

If the couple didn't talk to each other regarding the money or donating stuff to the SA, then they have to live with the consequences of their actions.



I wonder if they ever thought about just ASKING for their money back or if they just rushed out and called in the police.

Most decent people in the position of the finders would have returned the money willingly once the situation was explained to them. The couple that lost the money would also be morally obligated to provide the finders with a generous "finders fee" as well.


Why are people always so ready to press charges without trying to work out their issues amicably first?



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 08:10 PM
link   


Treasure trove is property that consists of coins or currency hidden by the owner. To be considered treasure trove and not mislaid property, the property must have been deliberately hidden or concealed, and sufficiently long ago that the original owner can be considered dead or not discoverable. For example, under English law, 100 Roman coins found buried in a chest would be treasure trove; however, 100 Roman coins which were lost over time in a marketplace would not be treasure trove, as they were not deliberately hidden as a single hoard. Under American common law, treasure trove belongs to the finder unless the original owner reclaims. Some states have rejected the American common law and hold that treasure trove belongs to the owner of the property in which the treasure trove was found. These courts reason that the American common law rule encourages trespass. Under the traditional English common law, treasure trove belongs to the Crown, though the finder may be paid a reward.


Link



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matthew Dark
reply to post by Matthew Dark
 


According to her:
"If property is lost or misplaced and discovered by a third party, the original owner is still entitled to those objects. If property has been abandoned or if it can be considered 'treasure trove', the finder is entitled to those objects."

So, she says that, by the law here in the States, it's pretty much a shoe in that the husband would be entitled to have his money back.
There you go folks.



Technically, it wasn't lost or misplaced. It was donated to the SA by a legitimate owner of the property. You could also argue that it was "abandoned" when the woman donated it.

At least that's what I would argue if I were in their shoes.

[edit on 4/7/10 by FortAnthem]




top topics



 
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join