It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 6
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 04:32 AM
This what happens when you find money in Australia hand it in & no one claims it, police won't return it.

Kids find money

Police won't return it

Law says in Australia if money unclaimed after 3 months finders keepers.
Law also says proceeds from crime the police keep, but in this case there is no evidence to prove it came from crime, only speculation.

[edit on 8-4-2010 by acrux]

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 05:11 AM
After watching No Country for Old Men the first thing I would check if there isn't a tracking device in the suitcase.

This happens a lot, money thrown away, garbage-dumps have been turned upside down to find money/gold/jewels.

I understand people who don't put their savings on the bank in these times when banks can go bankrupt or take your tax dollars thanks to government.

BUT if you have enough money, just buy a small fireproof vault, I have one (weighs 70 pounds) for my important papers. Bolt it to the floor and your spouse won't put it in the garbage or sell it at a garage sale.

Now for the case itself, the man should be able to get most of it back, if he's lucky he should get 85/90% back.

He is already lucky that they recorded the sales.

So there you have it, putting your savings in an old sock, matras or suitcase is stupid.

[edit on 8-4-2010 by Grey Magic]

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 05:19 AM
reply to post by Grey Magic

Given the high rate of inflation versus the low rate of interest, your advice of avoiding banks is a good one. It was stupid for the couple who "found" this money to deposit it in a bank, since in order to do so meant signing contracts that allowed the bank to report any "discrepancies" to law enforcement to take that wealth and declare the depositor a thief. What good is a bank that would do such a thing? That bank is not a service but rather an agent of government. Even if you never buy a suit case from a second hand store to discover $100,000 dollars hidden in it, what good is a bank that would willingly take your money and use it against you? Even if it is not your money, what difference is that to a bank?

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 05:43 AM
Some people really are ignorant of basic law on ATS :bnghd:

The people who bought this suitcase DID NOT buy the money inside, they bought the suitcase...How some people fail to get that I don't know, but I'm becoming less and less surprised by the astounding level of ignorance on ATS these days

Theft by finding has been law since christ played full forward for bethlehem under 10's...I can't believe people on this thread are suggesting the people who bought the case shouldn't be charged...

If the persons who stole the money had made efforts to locate the owner of the cash, and if they had handed the cash to police, they would have become rightful owners of said cash after X period of time if the rightful owners of the cash had not come forward to claim it...

But nope, being the dishonest tiprrat bogans they are, their thought processes didn't allow them to think beyond the first slab of Woodstock cola & bourbon pre-mix and the rest of the crap they bought with some of the money...

Theft by finding is no different to any other form of theft, regardless of the stupidity on the part of the owners of the cash in firstly leaving it in a suitcase and secondly, giving the case to the Salvos...

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 05:53 AM
reply to post by Retrovertigo

While absolutely correct on the matter of the cash found in the suit case, and a point of law, you are not so correct to take ATS members to task for not understanding that law. Law should always be self evident, but in this modern age of legislation masquerading as law, it should be wholly understandable why some people are confused about the law. The simple moral reality of this issue is that it was wrong to keep the cash without first attempting to find its rightful owner, however, given the shameless attempt by legislatures to invent law, any confusion on this matter stems from that alone.

Law is self evident, and I beg you believe me that there are numerous licensed attorneys operating under the current "Bar" scenario who would imprudently disagree. For that reason, it is the legislatures and lawyers who need to be taken to task and not average people confused about the law. Of course, we are all to blame for relying upon so called "experts" of law, but even so, we have and here we are. Morally speaking, what this couple did was wrong. Legally speaking, not so clear what was right and what was wrong. There is no good reason for morality and law to be separate issues, and only because we have so many advocates of moral relativism that we have this confusion.

[edit on 8-4-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 05:57 AM

Originally posted by FortAnthem
Well this one really sucks!

It seems like a clear case of theft to me in the technical sense. Such a large sum of money is obviously going to be missed by someone and obviously this large sum of money and its connection to the Salvation Army is a series of human errors.

The woman in giving this bag to the salvation army turned over ownership of the case not the money and to say “you hand over the bag you also hand over the contents - sucks to be you” is just misconstruing the events to suit a subjective argument and twisting the reality of the situation as no person in their right mind would simply hand over such a sum of money like that.

If this couple had been serious thieves then I would have thought that they would have buried the money at a secret location and when the police did catch up with them they could have denied any money had been in the bag while giving each other half smiles and sideways glances.

Such denials combined with no proof the money existed in the first place (which tends to happen when you stuff it into in a suitcase instead of a bank) would boomerang the police investigation right back to the salvation army store where the bag was bought. There the investigation would get nowhere, stall and the new owners could get on with feeling financially bloated for a while - It might be wise to lay off buying a brand new SUV for a long while however.

My opinion is that the original owner of the bag was extremely foolish in using the suitcase as a bank and his wife was a little presumptuous in selling something that was not hers and thinking it was ok because the owner is her husband - she owes him a mad week of toe curling madness methinks.

The people who banked money that was not theirs were naive and foolish for thinking that no one would come after such a large sum of money and they were naive in thinking they would not be arrested for it as the facts stand out for themselves as it was not a “tenner” they found it was a life changing amount of money that did not belong to them.

One hundred thousand dollars is a sum of money large enough for people to kill over – or to be arrested for especially when this sum gets banked because like I just said, it was not a tenner which could be excusable.

Banking one hundred thousand bucks is certainly not excusable, it is a predetermined act of greed fueled theft (in my opinion).

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 07:06 AM
I'm wondering if the money was crime-free in the first place. The whole shenanigans seems somewhat karmic on both sides.

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 08:21 AM

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.

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.

[edit on 7/4/10 by Nventual]

with that logic then the wife should be charged for theft from her husband

Did you miss the part where it says they BOUGHT the case at a store? what does that mean? Wifey, who has no idea her husband is being sneaky gives away what she thinks is just some old stuff to a second hand consignment store. Its that dudes fault for keeping his wife in the dark about the money to begin with.

First the wife examines the case with the money, decides to give it up to the store. next the clerks at the store get the case, inspect it, and put it on the shelf. third, some couple comes along, sees the case, and they buy it.

My real question is about the buyers at the store. how well did they look at the case? Did they buy it, seeing the lumps and think, "hey maybe there is money in here"? I can see the store owner not wanting to rip the lining to look behind it, because then they couldnt sell it, but either way, its still that guys fault for storing it like he did to begin with.

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 09:58 AM
The couple should have said to the guy and the police" Got any proof?"
They could only be done then if the guy had taken photos and recorded the exact amount stashed in the cash.
I'd say investigate the guy who stashed the money in the cash in the first place , why did he have to hide it? and how can he prove how much was actually in there?
As for the 'Theft by finding' nonsense I bet if a congressman had 'found a briefcase or suitcase full of cash he wouldn't be jailed or even investigated would he?
The only issue the couple had to worry about was irregular money activity in their account which the banks have to log ( mind you saying that what about the bailouts? one rule for them and one for us)? And how did the police track them down anyway?.

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 10:10 AM

Originally posted by DataWraith
And how did the police track them down anyway?.

The bozos who bought the case used EFTPOS and the police tracked them down via the transaction at point of sale...

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 11:04 AM
reply to post by eNumbra

I have to completely agree with you. I would hope that a generous and honest person might at least give some of the money back, but I know that it's probably just wishful thinking on their part.

being a minister, I have to turn everything into a lesson

There is a parable about a man finding treasure in a field and then selling everything he has to buy the field and therefor own the property and everything on it. The man didn't just take the treasure out of the field while it belonged to somebody else.

They bought a suitcase with money in it, it's theirs.

Oh, and I don't think the lady that took the suitcase in knew that her husband had hid the money in it. Honest mistake on her part, though I would have thought she would have checked a little more thoroughly.

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 11:41 AM
reply to post by eNumbra

In this country (USA) anyone who finds that kind of money and reports it will immediately have it taken by police who will declare it to be "drug money" and therefore property of the state. If you find a measly 5,000.00 though and tell police they will hold it for a period of time, usually 30-60 days, and if no one claims it they give it back to you free and clear. Australia clearly has different laws regarding found property.
If you were going to be dishonest and not report the money the best thing to do would be to stash it somewhere away from your home and when asked about the suitcase simply claim, "I don't know what you're talking about! There is no money in that case!" then let police sort through it. They would not be able to prove you did find the money. How many people handled that case at the Salvations Army before it was purchased? Any one of them could have taken it. Or, and this is the most likely scenario, the money was NEVER there in the first place! After all, who would stash that kind of money in the lining of an old suitcase??? In a few months the heat would be totally off.

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 03:30 PM
All I have to say is

Finders keepers losers weepers

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 03:35 PM
They accidentally donated more than they meant to. Well, next time they shouldn't be so error-prone. If I bought the suitcase I'd keep the money on the grounds I probably need it more than they do. Secondly I know other people who need the money probably more than they do. Yet I wouldn't know whether or not the random people who had it before me needed the money... it would seem not if they can stuff $100,000 in a suitcase and leave it in a closet somewhere.

One thing I wouldn't do is put the money in the bank... very bad move!

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 03:48 PM

Originally posted by WhiteDevil013
reply to post by FortAnthem

First of all, 100,000 in a suit case tells me one thing.

Illegal activities.

Whether its drug dealing, arms dealing or worse...

The police should have gone after the guy who;s hiding that much cash from his family, rather than the honest people who who just bought something fair and square and thought their prayers had finally been answered.

$100,000 in the bank indicates definite fraud since the whole banking system is a framework for fraud, whereas $100,000 in cash may or may not be fraudulent in nature. Every multi-millionaire ought to have $100,000 in cash laying around somewhere, and every multi-hundred-thousandaire ought to have $100,000 worth of silver and gold laying around. On the other hand anyone with $100,000 in cash in the bank is perpetuating fraud so you have to question what they are doing with that much money in the bank.

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 03:58 PM
reply to post by Nventual

I see no theft whatsoever. The fellow who purchased the suitcase, by virtue of that transaction, acquired ownership of the suitcase. As owner of the suitcase, he has every right to do with it as he chooses - including ripping out the lining. If that ripping discloses the existance of cash, it belongs to him assuming that he had no foreknowledge of its existance.

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 06:28 PM

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]

Lol, remind of this table of facts next time I play at the bookies and lose though I doubt it will go the same way lol.

If you look at it one way, that person who gave his suitcase to 'look after' was gambling his money...... if this guy ever existed at all.

I can't think of any reason that wasn't illegal why you wouldn't put your money for safe keeping in a bond or with a bank.

I think foul play, back hander to the cops and all that low level scum stuff.

edited because I quoted the wrong user lol

[edit on 8/4/2010 by OvernightGuy]

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 07:12 PM
How did they find the poeple with the cash. Last time i bought something from Salvation Army i didnt need an ID. And the ones here only take cash or vouchers.

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 07:39 PM

Originally posted by Matthew Dark
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.

I agree with you, also consider.. the couple legally purchased an item that at the time was property of the salvation army.. the woman & money dude shouldn't be the "victims" since they didn't 'lose' anything, it was legally and voluntarily donated... donated by "mistake", sure.. but legally the ownership of that item was transferred... then re-sold (ownership transferred again).

The man & woman might be victims of felony stupid, but neither one of them "lost" anything.. he knew exactly where the money was but failed to keep track of it. Apparently the woman had permission to donate it, otherwise she stole it.. or if she didn't steal it, but screwed up.. she's negligent & he should sue her for giving away his money.

If anything, it should be a civil matter... although depositing the money in a non off shore bank was pretty dumb.

posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 12:49 AM
This threatens the entire basis of all trade.

There are two basic concepts in trade...

CAVE EMPTOR ...Buyer beware

CAVE VENDOR ...Seller beware

If the item was bought in good faith then all that goes with it in terms of liability and benefit is the new owners.

CONSIDER THIS EXAMPLE... People invested in Cluff Oil and bought shares without realising that Algy Cluff was an idiot.

Algy Cluff then reaches an agreement with a Third Word country to drill for oil. Sounds like a good deal, but all the geologists say that there CANNOT be any oil there.

As his exploratory rigs are heaved at great expense through the tropical jungles, investors sell their shares for pennies on the dollar to new people.

By the time his oil rigs begin to drill into the granite, Cluff Oil is on the brink of total bankruptcy.

Cluff then drills for oil where there CANNOT BE any oil. The core samples comes up and it is confirmed that there is NO OIL as expected there whatsoever... just a seam of gold making it one of the biggest discoveries of gold in Africa in history, for which Cluff Oil now, accidentally own all the rights.

So, can the original shareholders sue the new shareholders for the money they lost? Of course not. Can the new shareholders, daft enough to have bought the shares on Cluff Oil when it was teetering on bankruptcy? Of course not.

When you sell an item, you sell all liability and possible gain on it. That is what good and fair title means, otherwise the all trade is nonsense.

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in