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: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by GobbledokTChipeater
 


The couple who bought the suitcase were idiots for depositing the money in the first place.
How were they going to explain that to the government?

That's a handsome cat, by the way.




posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by damn_ummmm
 


I found a few more sources for this story, none of them mentions the "holding it for a friend" story;

$100,000 missing after wife drops suitcase at Salvation Army store in Beaconsfield

www.heraldsun.com.au...

Salvos $100K suitcase still missing


In all of the stories the claim is that the money is the couple's life savings.

If they're changing their story now, this could get interesting...

[edit on 4/7/10 by FortAnthem]



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 10:02 PM
link   
Tax evasion, anyone?

"Wait, no officer I was holding for...a friend."

- Lee



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Nah man I doubt they're changing their story, as I said earlier it's entirely possible my local news was making it up as they went along as they so often do, urgh



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by eNumbra
 


I have to agree with this poster. The people didn't "find" the suitcase, they bought it. They bought it with everything that was in it. Perhaps the seller thought it was empty, perhaps the donor thought it was empty, but once they donated it and subsequently sold it that property was no longer theirs, nor was any contents. If it were me, I'd produce the receipt and show that there was no theft.


..Ex



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by damn_ummmm
Nah man I doubt they're changing their story, as I said earlier it's entirely possible my local news was making it up as they went along as they so often do, urgh



Gotta love the MSM. If they don't know the facts, they just make something up.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 10:11 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.


This has nothing to do with Commerce.

Nothing was lost.

The item was sold fair and square in a marketplace.

That is not the definition of "Lost Property".

"Personal property is considered to be lost if the owner has involuntarily parted with it and is ignorant of its location. Mislaid property is that which an owner intentionally places somewhere with the idea that he will eventually be able to find it again but subsequently forgets where it has been placed. Abandoned property is that to which the owner has intentionally relinquished all rights."

Thus this is technically "Abandoned property", to a donation center, whom then legally sold it.

It may have originally been "Mislaid property" technically, but the wife as legal marrige laws define, legally traded the item as it was technically theirs and constitutes as a legal trade.

Only by providing a prenuptial document proving that she had no legal rights to their joint property will the money be viable for a legal return.

If a prenuptial document is provided, the suitcase AND the $ are technically "Mislaid" and cannot be sold legally without consent of the prior owner.

And then there needs to be an organized crime investigation no matter which way we go here. This guys hot.

A quick google reveals...
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Oh and the prenuptial doc must be signed and dated and have legal witnesses BEFORE the date of the incident.

You can't write it up now, too late.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 10:14 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.



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


I think it's more like buying a garage and finding a car in it.
I'm sure Mayer Rothschild would have gone straight to the auth to hand his luck to the politicians. I mean thats how the elite became elite by following the rules right.


[edit on 7-4-2010 by MinorityReporter]

[edit on 7-4-2010 by MinorityReporter]



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 10:15 PM
link   
See if the law was all "CUT AND DRY" like they claim, you wouldn't need a lawyer would you?

You would only have judges.

See the law isnt cut and dry. It isn't all clear and perfect. It's wide open.

And that is why this case is clearly winnable and the $$$ can stay with the couple.

lol.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


No, you're right, it's not law of commerce, it's law of property.
Different sets of rules apply.
And now you're being argumentative just because you don't like being wrong.
I have no personal stake in this, I merely related what the law book said.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 10:20 PM
link   
I don't think anyone is clearly right or wrong with this one.... we are talking about Australian Law here, anything can happen and only time will tell once the case goes to court.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Matthew Dark
 


I have no stake in it either.

It's just in law playing devil's advocate is easy.

You can argue it either way.

You were arguing as if your wife threw away your $.

I was arguing as if I bought 100,000$ for 30$. Which is a fair business practice by the way that ALL Corporations follow, its called PROFIT.


Like I said, I am merely doing a devil's advocate thing here. Simply for fun it's like a mental exercise. ATS is like a Gymnasium for Brains.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 10:23 PM
link   
The very act of donating it to The Salvation Army immediately warrants immediate forfeiture of not only the suitcase but it's contents as well.

In a situation like that it becomes the sole property of the new owner. The original owner should've been way more careful where he hid the money.

Why did the new couple deposit the money for? That was their foulup there.
In the USA every deposit larger then $5,000 (USD) immediately sends a red flag to The US Dept of Homeland Security as possibly being involved with terrorism support and financing.

If you buy something secondhand and discover it's loaded with money do not tell a soul, zip your lips, deny everything and do not deposit the money. Go on a mini spending spree using cash only. Stash the cash in another spot besides a suitcase.

The couple who got locked up better get a damn good lawyer as they are going to need one to walk on this.

Salvation Army has a policy that reads as "no refunds, no exchanges, no returns, everything is sold as is as nothing is guaranteed to either work, be complete or intact". The donating wife should've read that as well as her hubby.

[edit on 7-4-2010 by TheImmaculateD1]



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matthew Dark
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


No, you're right, it's not law of commerce, it's law of property.
Different sets of rules apply.


I will address this too.

The law of property only applies if a document proves that this woman had no legal right to donate or "Abandon" the property to the center.

But it becomes Commerce if such a document cannot be supplied.

Thus we have to allow the finders to choose whether to keep or return their "profits" from their lucky transaction. That would be purely their choice.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by damn_ummmm
I don't think anyone is clearly right or wrong with this one.... we are talking about Australian Law here, anything can happen and only time will tell once the case goes to court.


Yep you are right on the $$$.

It all boils down to the lawyers and how good they argue. And what mood the jurors are in. Also, the judge and his demeanor comes heavily into play.

These are the REAL factors.

These pieces of paper are malleable and full of loopholes. A good debater from ATS could probably argue either side of any coin very well in court.

So really, any outcome is possible. That is how our law system works.

Much loved, much loathed. But it's all we got!



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matthew Dark
reply to post by GobbledokTChipeater
 


The couple who bought the suitcase were idiots for depositing the money in the first place.
How were they going to explain that to the government?

That's a handsome cat, by the way.


I agree. If I found $100,000 I certainly wouldn't deposit it into my account...


And thankyou



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 10:30 PM
link   
And I bet you the bottom line with a real Jury of Peers is gonna be to let the couple keep the 100.000.

I can just feel it in their bones.

It's just the aroma of the cash, it smells like drugs bad.

Juries are really fickle like that.

[edit on 7-4-2010 by muzzleflash]



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 10:38 PM
link   
Also, let's maybe nominate this drug pusher for a Darwin Award.

No I'm serious. He deserves it.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 11:08 PM
link   
I can understand the frustration at having a possession of yours given away without your permission - especially one containing $100k. I can understand the police deciding the money should be returned to the original owner. What I DON'T understand is why the couple are receiving jail time for keeping money that they received by chance. It is absolutely ridiculous to think that finding money by chance makes you a criminal worthy of jail time!

Technically speaking, posters saying the couple now own the suitcase and its contents are correct. They bought a product legally and are now the rightful owners of that item. Since the original owner of the case is having the money returned, why is there a need to punish the couple?

[edit on 7/4/2010 by Dark Ghost]



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join