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.
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
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.
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]
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.
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.
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.