Couples good luck rewarded with JAIL TIME

Originally posted by eNumbra

Originally posted by Horza
reply to post by FortAnthem

 

You give the money back because it's the right thing to do.

End of story.

Moral Relativism.

End of story.

In philosophy moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect universal moral truths (neither objective nor ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

There is a universality to what Horza has stated. End of story.

Edit to correct username confusion. Sorry Horza.

[edit on 7-4-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

reply to post by eNumbra


Sure ... but by pulling out that old lame duck you make this entire debate irrelevant ...

... but if you want to treat this as a hypothetical, what would want to happen if it were your 100k?

Originally posted by damn_ummmm
Just a point of clarification.

The suitcase was given to the husband by a friend of his to 'hold onto'. His wife donated the suitcase without consulting her husband, not knowing it wasn't theirs let alone what was inside it.

This money doesn't belong to either of them, it belongs to a 'friend' of the husbands...

Just gets murkier doesn't it

Stupid bloody law, I reckon if I pay for something it's mine regardless of what's in it or where it came from.

[edit on 7/4/10 by damn_ummmm]

/Facepalm

Do you have a link for that info?

Originally posted by Horza
reply to post by eNumbra

 

... but if you want to treat this as a hypothetical, what would want to happen if it were your 100k?

It wouldn't be. In case you couldn't tell by now, my $100k dollars are not so easily misplaced.


I suppose if I have to answer, I'd fight tooth and nail to get it back, but wouldn't expect it to be mine or an easy fight. Which is why I'm far more careful with my money.

[edit on 4/7/2010 by eNumbra]

double post

[edit on 4/7/2010 by eNumbra]

Originally posted by damn_ummmm
Just a point of clarification.

The suitcase was given to the husband by a friend of his to 'hold onto'. His wife donated the suitcase without consulting her husband, not knowing it wasn't theirs let alone what was inside it.

This money doesn't belong to either of them, it belongs to a 'friend' of the husbands...

That's interesting but I don't see that info in the story I posted in the OP.

Do you have a link for this new info?

Edit to add: Also that story sounds REALLY fishy.

[edit on 4/7/10 by FortAnthem]

reply to post by muzzleflash


When you bought the suitcase, you didn't pay for what ever was in the suitcase ... as far as you were aware, the suitcase was empty.

As you only paid for the suitcase you get to keep the suitcase ... the 100k is not yours ... give it back

reply to post by FortAnthem


I agree that "theft by finding" is a harsh decision ... although it seems as though the couple who found it made a very deliberate decision to keep the without trying to find out who the original owners were.

In this case, in my eyes, this is theft.

Edit - Just to say it would only be harsh if this couple had tried to find the original owner but couldn't and then get charged with theft anyway ... but it doesn't seem as though they did this

[edit on 7/4/10 by Horza]

EEK no link... it was just on my local news report last night... I remembered it because the first thing I thought was 'how dodgy'.

It is entirely possible that my local news was wrong.. wouldn't be the first time but I'll have a look around online.

reply to post by eNumbra


This debate isn't about personal banking habits, it's about the moral decision to keep or to return 100k found in a suitcase.

My opinion is that you try to return it.

In Australia, if you hand in money to the police and they can't find the owner, they give it to the people who have found it.

This is what this couple should have done ... like these very cool kids:
www.mizozo.com...
www.abc.net.au...

And there are so many other ways this couple could have tried to find to original owner of the suitcase ... but instead, they were greedy and decided to keep it ... I say, they should be punished for it ... it is theft

Originally posted by eNumbra

Does the marriage really not affect ownership of the money? Could he then say he wants the briefcase back too since she donated it?

I don't think it does, but I'm guessing that would depend on where the money came from.
That's more torts law than property I think.

Apart from handing the money in to police, how could they have traced the original owners??

I don't know if you've ever donated anything to the Salvos before but it's not like you give them your name and address when you drop stuff off. Then there are the overflowing donation bins where absolutely anyone can drop off (and even take) stuff...

Their only choice would have been to hand it in to police.

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Show me where this law exists.

I don't think it has been clearly defined at all.

One of my previous posts.
I wrote exactly what it said in the law book.
Again, it doesn't matter if it's been clearly defined to you, it's clearly defined when it comes to lawyers and judges, it's not about opinion, it's about educated interpretation by legal professionals.

reply to post by damn_ummmm


Some places require you sign paperwork proving or stating that you are indeed the owner of the items being donated.
For legal ownership and tax write-off purposes.
Not all places require such a thing though.

Originally posted by damn_ummmm
This money doesn't belong to either of them, it belongs to a 'friend' of the husbands...

Just gets murkier doesn't it

Hmm...that is interesting.
Where is this friend and why hasn't he come forward?

I wonder, could it be that they are passing the buck because they don't want to have to explain why 100k was hidden in a suitcase if asked?

That's one helluva friend he has to trust him with the case AND have him know that it has 100k sewn inside its lining but that is just my opinion and so far has no bearing in this.

If the case WAS that couples and her husband had passed away, she could have donated some of his junk anonymously (or just casually like I have with no real records) never knowing she lost a dime. She wouldn't know to look for or report anything and no one could reach her otherwise.

If the couple were to return the money to the Salvos I wonder who would get the money then?

- Lee

Originally posted by damn_ummmm
EEK no link... it was just on my local news report last night... I remembered it because the first thing I thought was 'how dodgy'.

It is entirely possible that my local news was wrong.. wouldn't be the first time but I'll have a look around online.

That's cool. If you can find a link to the local news story that would be great.


That whole "I was holding onto the money for a friend" bit still sounds totally bogus to me. Sounds like the money MUST have come from some type of illegitimate source. I wouldn't be suprised to find out there's a lot more to this story than what we're hearing right now.

I would LMAO of the couple who lost the money ends up in jail after all is said and done.


Please keep us up to date if you find more details to this story.

OK now "Theft by finding". I thought this had to some kind of joke. I did some checking and the law is more stupid than you think. See the link below.

I bet the LOST AND FOUND in the UK newspapers is a very small scetion if it even has one. And I though we had stupid laws but they have out done us on this one for sure.


www.dailymail.co.uk...

Matthew Dark - In Australia there is no paperwork required at all for donating to a charity, only for selling second hand goods.

Lee Anoma - I have no idea where this 'friend' is or even if he exists, merely what I heard on my 6pm news last night. I have looked for a link but can't find it and not even sure where to start (not very comp savvy) was Brisbane Nightly News at 6pm on Channel 7.

FortAnthem - As stated above... I can't find the link and believe me, wish I could!!

[edit on 7/4/10 by damn_ummmm]

reply to post by damn_ummmm


Yeah, I kind of had a feeling about that.
But it's required by most charities here in the States.
I only know that because I had to jump through some hoops to donate some stuff when I emptied out my apartment to move cross-country.
But yeah, I'm guessing it varies in other countries.

Quick search of Australian Law Databases (all available via FOI) has brought up an inference to Theft By Finding in a Family Law case from 2008.

Example of Australian Theft by Finding law

Long document but if you do an in-document search for theft by finding it will take you directly to the inference.

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.
[edit on 7/4/10 by Nventual]

On Today Tonight (I think it was) last night, they specifically said that it doesn't matter if it is $1 or $100,000, the same law still applies. So how do you come to the conclusion that it doesn't apply to $1 ??


I think the people that found the money could've dealt with it better...

BUT... they bought the suitcase (with the unexpected haul) fair and friggin square. The wife donated the suitcase (with the unexpected haul). For the people saying "it wasn't the wifes to donate" then shouldn't she be the one being charged? After all, she gave away property that wasn't hers.

They said on the TV show last night that the finders face up to 6 YEARS BEHIND BARS! Yep the legal system works well