I Was Sold a Stolen Mobile

mkh1991 on 14/05/2020 - 19:00
Last edited 15/05/2020 - 09:32 by 2 other users

Hi all.

Having a bad day today. Two months ago I purchased a mobile from a guy on marketplace, iPhone 11 and the mobile was fair priced, $900, as well the guy showed me the receipt for the purchase and gave me his contact details so I just bought the phone off from him.

Today I got a call from police station that the mobile was stolen from a JB Hi-Fi shop, the guy actually purchased the mobile from JB Hi-Fi in one suburb and took back to another suburb the next day, allegedly with the empty box and charger only, store staff didn't bothered to open the phone box and return the money to the seller.

The police told me that I need to return the phone and I'm in kind of a terrible situation.

Any advice?

Mobile

closed Comments

  • mkh1991 on 16/05/2020 - 14:27

    Thanks everyone for your thoughts and support, I will be cooperating with police and return the phone and leave everything on fate, path of least resistance

  • ballsau on 14/05/2020 - 19:07
    +29

    Yes

    • CyberMurning on 14/05/2020 - 19:15
      -6

      Agree with the above answer. Yes.

      It means, whatever your common sense, logic and mind tell you, we say yes to it.

      • Bryanalves on 16/05/2020 - 03:14

        Return the phone

  • JimmyF on 14/05/2020 - 19:17
    +1

    and gave me his contact details

    Are these valid? Give them to the police. But sadly you do have 'stolen'goods, so you're kinda screwed and lost that money.

    • mkh1991 on 14/05/2020 - 19:24
      +13

      Yeah got email from police and have provided them details,time and date of meet in Maccas for cctv, Facebook chats, bank transfer screenshot.

      • Scrooge McDuck on 15/05/2020 - 21:31
        +20

        From the information you've provided, the perpetrator purchased the phone lawfully but then committed refund fraud against the store. I don't see how that makes the phone stolen. It seems like sloppy police work.

      • Zonty on 15/05/2020 - 22:01
        +16

        I believe it's jb hi fi worker fault as you have enough to prove you bought phone without any knowledge. As far you know phone was legally own by seller. You bought phone so if seller can not refund money you should not return either, it's contract between seller and buyer not with jb hi fi. You need to prove that you did not buy stolen goods it was 2nd hand good and you paid as part of contract.
        Jb hi fi need chase guy who got refund not you.
        You have enough to say it's not your fault and if they want mobile back you need your money back so if you need mobile can go court I believe most likely it will be in your favour decision.

        • TK Deadwalker on 16/05/2020 - 13:56

          It really does seem like the fault of JB Hi-fi, the worker should have inspected the box before issuing the refund?

          It would have been the stores fault and their loss.

          • TK Deadwalker on 16/05/2020 - 13:57

            @TK Deadwalker: How did the Police find out you had the phone?

            Wouldn't they have tracked the details to the guy who sold you the phone?

      • Bryanalves on 16/05/2020 - 03:15

        The police told you to return the phone. What advice do you expect from us? Tell you the police lied to u?

    • holdenmg on 14/05/2020 - 19:57

      Photo of sellers Drivers Licence or something…

    • [Deactivated] on 15/05/2020 - 09:27
      +17

      Just yell - A triple C! A C A!

      Works everytime, sixty percent of the time.

  • mbck on 14/05/2020 - 19:55
    +8

    Poor worker at jb. Didn't do his check-list with refunds.

    • John Kimble on 14/05/2020 - 19:57
      +5

      "Poor" is a nice way to put it.

      • ssquid on 14/05/2020 - 22:11
        +7

        Probably former worker at JB, less poor now getting $750/wk JobSeeker.

        • OzCheapo on 14/05/2020 - 23:25
          +29

          The fault should lie with the JB Hifi representative, not the buyer.

          • gromit on 15/05/2020 - 11:37
            +5

            @OzCheapo: That is not how stolen goods work. The person at the end of the chain is holding stolen goods, his beef is with the person that sold it to him not JB and likewise JB's beef is simply the return of goods stolen by the individual, the fact he also scammed him out of money is irrelevant. I am sure the worker at JB has his/her own set of problems to deal with for not checking, but again irrelevant.

            • OzCheapo on 15/05/2020 - 11:42
              +11

              @gromit: I'm not in the legal profession but assuming that OP was sold the watch before the fraudulent return was made by the original purchaser then I fail to understand how it can count as stolen goods. This is not the case necessarily but I'm confused why it would be possession of stolen goods if the phone was bought properly and the original purchaser then committed fraud.

              The drama caused by excess trust and a skidmark of society.

              • gromit on 15/05/2020 - 11:46

                @OzCheapo: I would think that is a pretty big assumption. It is far more likely in a planned con like this that returned the phone the same day with some excuse like (oh I found my lost phone), then they proceed to sell the phone over the coming days weeks. The longer it has been away from the store the more likely an employee is gonna check it. Which means at the time he sold the phone on he had no legal title of it.

                • OzCheapo on 15/05/2020 - 11:57
                  +2

                  @gromit: Heyya grommit I appreciate the explanation. The point I'm making is that the fault and responsibility for recovery of damages should lie with the thief/fraudster and the jb hifi employee. If everything OP is saying checks out then he's been dragged in as an innocent bystander.

                  • gromit on 15/05/2020 - 12:14
                    +2

                    @OzCheapo: unfortunately no, To sell something you have to have title to be able to do so and any purchaser basically hasn't received ownership. Unfortunately he is likely to be SOL unless JB decide to be nice and acknowledge their fault in the process. important to note that if it is the reverse and he did the box return after selling then yeah it is JB's problem as the scammer didn't have title to return it. Very easy for OP to check as JB will have date and time of the return and he has his purchase date and time as well.

                    To make it worse there are websites out there detailing how to do this scam. The poor JB guy may also be just as unfortunate as if they do it right with a razor blade to open the box they can make the box look like it is still sealed and had not been opened by the scammer.

              • cameldownunder on 15/05/2020 - 13:32
                +1

                @OzCheapo: When a shop does a return, don't they invalidate the receipt of the original purchase?

                • OzCheapo on 15/05/2020 - 13:35

                  @cameldownunder: No idea mate, I didn't work in retail but @gromit might be able to chip in. The kicker in the situation is that OP didn't take the receipt.

                  • cameldownunder on 15/05/2020 - 13:56

                    @OzCheapo:

                    The kicker in the situation is that OP didn't take the receipt.

                    (profanity) ! On a $900 not taking the receipt is negligent. Expensive learning money.

                  • gromit on 15/05/2020 - 14:21

                    @OzCheapo: No idea for JB, my parents retails shops (they ran those for almost 40 years) would always stamp across the receipt that the item was returned and sign it, then let the customer keep the receipt.

              • Skinnerr on 16/05/2020 - 05:21

                @OzCheapo: Lmao skidmark of society. That's the best insult I've heard all year haha.

            • Maz78 on 16/05/2020 - 09:06

              @gromit: It ain't stolen. The original purchaser defrauded JB by getting a refund and gave them an EMPTY box. They still PAID for the phone. So where is anything stolen here??
              If anything, it's JB that stuffed up.

              • gromit on 16/05/2020 - 09:29
                +1

                @Maz78: No JB gave him a refund on a purchase. invalidating the purchase, the phone at that point belongs to JB.

            • entropysbane on 16/05/2020 - 11:58

              @gromit: Correct. My father once bought a fair lane cheap From a dodgy Sydney 2nd hand car salesman, even ran the VIN check, but the engine block number had been ”adjusted”. Anyway, he drove it for about 12 years, towing vans etc. traded it in on a Prado. Dealer discovers it is stolen from BHP years and years ago. Dealer wore the cost.

  • holdenmg on 14/05/2020 - 19:56
    +35

    First Rule of Fight Club is do not talk about FIGHT CLUB

    First Rule of McDonalds is not to buy iPhones from people dressed as Hamburglar

    • ssquid on 14/05/2020 - 22:13
      +15

      First Rule of McDonalds is it's called Maccas.

      • Antikythera on 15/05/2020 - 12:23
        +4

        First Rule of Maccas is, do not eat at Maccas during a pandemic.

        • abuch47 on 15/05/2020 - 16:35
          +3

          ever

        • [Deactivated] on 15/05/2020 - 16:52
          +1

          wow that escalated quickly

  • CodeXD on 14/05/2020 - 19:58
    +3

    the guy actually purchased the mobile from JB Hi-Fi in one suburb and took back to another suburb the next day, allegedly with the empty box and charger only, store staff didn't bothered to open the phone box and return the money to the seller.

    I don't see how this is your problem when by your description, mess up by JB emplloyee?

    • Olokun on 14/05/2020 - 20:01
      +18

      I agree. The phone is not stolen. What he committed is fraud or gaining financial advantage by deception.

      • Silicon Wizardry on 15/05/2020 - 17:30
        +3

        Title has never passed from the thief. Thief kept the phone while pretending to return it. Store got title back on the supposed return when it refunded the money. Thief cannot pass good title to OP. That isn't affected by what you charge the thief with, or think he should be charged with.

        • Skinnerr on 16/05/2020 - 05:24

          But what was in the phone seller's heart? Did he intend to do the fraud?🤔 That, is the question of the matter.

        • Maz78 on 16/05/2020 - 09:09

          That's irrelevant. They still PAID for it initially. So it was never stolen from JB. Cops sound pretty dumb. This is just fraud and JB were on the receiving end

    • DashCam AKA Rolts on 14/05/2020 - 20:30

      By your reasoning if a person sells you a car that they don't own and the police come knocking, you believe you can keep the car, as it's not your problem? I'd like to see how that would work out?

      • Evelyn208 on 15/05/2020 - 07:53
        +19

        More like if a person sells you a car that they purchased but duped a refund out of it while retaining possession of the car.

        I don't get how this is a "stolen phone". It was purchased, left the store legally, with a receipt. It never re-entered the store's possession.

        Fraudulently getting a refund is the store's problem. They never took back possession of the phone. The phone left their possession at sale and they are the idiots that gave a guy money for nothing.

        • GrueHunter on 15/05/2020 - 18:29
          -2

          It was the store's phone.

          They thief offered to buy it. The store accepted. Money was exchanged. There was a contract, and title of the phone passed to the thief.

          The thief signalled a desire to revert on the contract. Money was returned. Title of the phone passed back to the store.

          Anybody except the store who now has the phone has stolen it.

          (I should add that this assumes the thief sold the phone after the refund. If the thief sold the phone while he still had title, and then defrauded JB out of a refund with an empty box, that's different.)

      • jmsu on 15/05/2020 - 07:58
        +1

        Well, it's an interesting one… Depending on the timeline of things, if you purchase an item validly, then I purchase it from you validly, then you commit fraud to obtain a refund, I would say that I have good title to the item. The search term, I think, would be "bona fide purchaser of stolen goods".

        In the alternate, I'd say whether OP had knowledge or reasonable suspicion that the goods were stolen (keeping in mind that the goods weren't stolen, if as suggested here that the seller gave his mobile to the second JB Hi-Fi to obtain a refund) is also relevant.

      • Zonty on 15/05/2020 - 22:14

        Buyer took enouh action to make sure it was not stolen goods by checking receipt. When you buy car you take licence detail s and transfer form from seller if liecence is fake then how come buyer will know. In this case police already have details of person who sold goods it means he is suppose to be charged not buyer. You can ask return phone when seller refund money to buyer.

  • John Kimble on 14/05/2020 - 20:03
    +66

    How did the police have your details to call you? Are you sure it was really the police? 🤔

    • oscargamer on 14/05/2020 - 20:31
      -1

      Really? Think about it for one second…

      • Caped Baldy on 14/05/2020 - 21:05

        The thief gave the number to the JB staff member. How dastardly!

    • [Deactivated] on 14/05/2020 - 21:04
      +60

      CovidSafe app.

      • paraneoplastic on 14/05/2020 - 22:37
        +21

        5G

        • TeslaFan on 15/05/2020 - 12:35
          +12

          Wrong, 5G only gives you coronavirus.

          • nobro25 on 15/05/2020 - 13:21
            +1

            @TeslaFan: Can you explain how 5G transmit RNA strands across a medium and how does it that latch on to the A2 receptor of the hosts cell in order to give instructions for the cell to replicate the virus.

            • paraneoplastic on 15/05/2020 - 14:02
              +10

              @nobro25: It's simple. 5G induces exponentially higher efficiency polymerase activity resulting in COVID replicating when aerosolized at a substantially higher rate. The higher inoculum then can invade the host easier.

              Quite straightforward really…

              wooosh

            • skyva on 15/05/2020 - 23:54
              +2

              @nobro25: you have been mislead by big pharma. There is no virus, it is weakened immune system. First you set up the disease by immunising when young, then you turn on the transmitters to activate the immunisation. Then you go for more immunisation. More transmitters, your now hooked on big pharma.
              WAKE UP SHEEPLE
              (joke, I work in pharma).

            • peteru on 16/05/2020 - 02:54
              +2

              @nobro25:

              latch on to the A2

              I knew that overpriced A2 milk was somehow involved!

          • burningrage on 15/05/2020 - 14:18

            @TeslaFan: At this rate, it might give you impotence too. :-)

          • ToTheMoon on 15/05/2020 - 16:00
            +1

            @TeslaFan: what about 6G? syphilis?

        • Trioboy on 15/05/2020 - 12:47
          -2

          Autism?

    • johno3456 on 15/05/2020 - 15:21
      +3

      IMEI tracking.
      There may be timing issues as to whether it is stolen or fraud on JB but either way the phone is going to be blocked. If JB is treating the phone as lost or stolen then they can stop the phone from being used on the Australian phone network.

      Also, there may be a suspicion that you are working with the original purchaser or perhaps you bought it from the store rep who may have sold you a stolen phone.
      What the cops tell you on the phone is not necessarily the facts of the matter.

      • Marty131 on 15/05/2020 - 19:48

        Police can block a device from accessing network based on IMEI, but can they contact said device with knowledge only of the IMEI?

        • hashtag7 on 16/05/2020 - 06:54

          Yes they can ask the carrier for the details

  • holdenmg on 14/05/2020 - 20:03

    Have JB got footage of the original purchase and supposed return to other shop?

  • realfancyman on 14/05/2020 - 20:26

    Don't do anything

    • oscargamer on 14/05/2020 - 20:32
      +3

      And then you'll be charged for handling stolen goods / possess proceeds of crime.

      • gezza90 on 15/05/2020 - 19:27
        +2

        But then what's going to happen? Police come knocking on your door and take you into custody?
        A tribunal opened up against you?

        OP Is in his right here. He paid, he got. The JB hi-fi worker is actually at fault here they basically gave out money without getting the phone. The phone isn't stolen. Jb Hifi's money is stolen.
        Sh*t changes 😄

        • oscargamer on 15/05/2020 - 19:29

          Yes. Once you are aware you are in possession of stolen goods, you absolutely can (and most likely will) be arrested and charged.

          You can't legally acquire (buy) stolen goods.

          Are you being serious or just trolling?

          • gezza90 on 15/05/2020 - 19:38

            @oscargamer: This goes both ways.
            1. Assume OP is at the wrong here. He is unknowingly in possession of a stolen good. The fact that he checked paperwork and receipt and got details shows he did 'some' due-diligence but not quite enough. A photo of licence would've been good and purchasing a phone without a box or charger should raise red flags.
            2. Assume jb hi-fi worker at wrong here. Why would jb be so easy and quick on a refund? And the lack of due-diligence on worker's end to ask the right questions why the refund and check the phone condition clearly shows worker doesn't care about workplace procedures.

            It seems to me that jb hi-fi is trying to fix their mistake at the cost of an innocent person who paid for a product and got something in return. Why is OP being punished who did more due diligence and more of the right thing and not the worker?

          • Nebargains on 16/05/2020 - 12:42

            @oscargamer: I think OP did their due diligence by checking they had a legitimate receipt for the phone… if the cops waste their time charging op then my god that is the biggest waste of tax payer dollars, surely it would never get to that and they would just block the IMEI or whatever.

            JB is out whatever the phone cost, Op is out whatever the phone cost, giving it back is not going to achieve anything? What will JB do? They can't sell it as new, I don't think they sell refurbished phones, perhaps Apple have some refurb program where retailers can return phones to them etc and make a tiny amount of money on it.

            But this whole thing is a gigantic waste of time, how much tax payer money is being spent pursuing Op instead of going after the actual thief? Why is JB even wasting their time on this? Staff member error on their part and they have probably wasted hundreds of dollars in staff wages just getting CCTV footage, dealing with police etc, when JB gets the phone back, no doubt everyone is simply out of pocket and that's it.

      • xeper on 16/05/2020 - 00:00

        I wonder if you sell land in Australia - that you are profiting from stolen property? (first Australians)

      • Butt Scratcher on 16/05/2020 - 14:27

        And then you'll be charged for handling stolen goods / possess proceeds of crime.

        Assuming what OP says is true, none of these offences apply

  • xuqi on 14/05/2020 - 20:49
    +11

    The 'Police' are going to conduct an interview at a local Macca's, after which they'll take possession of the goods.

    Honestly though, don't do anything over the phone or email. Walk in to an actual police station to hand in/back the phone, ensuring it is the Police you're dealing with.

    • mousie on 15/05/2020 - 11:47
      +1

      Is that before or after lunch?

  • MS Paint on 14/05/2020 - 20:51
    +25

    Quickly sell it on Gumtree.

    Someone elses problem now.

    • Kangal on 15/05/2020 - 18:03
      +1

      Not sure why the negs, I thought that was pretty funny

      • gimme on 15/05/2020 - 20:57
        -1

        Because self righteous people lose their sense of humor over time

  • pegaxs on 14/05/2020 - 21:05
    +47

    Take it to your nearest police station and make an inquiry directly with police. If it is stolen, you will then have the basis for your own theft/fraud report, that of the $900 the scammer took from you.

    Once you have made a report to police and handed the phone back, go to your bank with your police report about the fraud and see if the bank can reverse/chase/return the funds.

    • 82norm on 15/05/2020 - 18:44
      -1

      What happens if OP paid in cash?

      • cheesecactus on 15/05/2020 - 19:09
        +1

        Op said he bank transferred it

    • PopCounty on 15/05/2020 - 21:29
      +4

      Really this should have been the first comment. So accurate and precise.

    • bigbadboogieman on 15/05/2020 - 21:44
      +1

      This needs to be up top… Someone please tag the OP.

    • supacheap on 16/05/2020 - 09:24

      Agree with this … but the issue is banks usually don't reverse/chase the funds if it's a bank transfer - it's more if you used a credit/debit card to pay for it. So worst case scenario OP is unlikely to get the money back :(

  • holdenmg on 14/05/2020 - 21:06
    +4

    What does Siri say about all this?

    • Hardlyworkin on 14/05/2020 - 22:02
      +1

      Don't spend more on a phone than you can afford to lose!

    • lgacb08 on 15/05/2020 - 11:47
      +6

      Sorry I don't quite get that.

      • [Deactivated] on 15/05/2020 - 16:54

        lol
        I see what you did there…

  • N1NJ4W4RR10R on 14/05/2020 - 21:11
    +3

    Failing to see why the store wouldn't chase the guy for fraud?

    Might be better off asking on the aussie legal advice sub reddit for grade B legal advice though.

    • MS Paint on 14/05/2020 - 21:22
      +3

      IANAL butt….

    • holdenmg on 14/05/2020 - 21:22
      +2

      They referred OP here.

      • N1NJ4W4RR10R on 15/05/2020 - 11:00
        +3

        The circle of the internet

  • garetz on 14/05/2020 - 21:55
    +50

    I'm confused here, how is that stolen goods ? At the time of your purchasing it, the seller was in possession of the item, when they sold it to you they were the legitimate owner.

    Then they did what they did to get a refund from jbhifi, isnt that fraud ? They fraudulently misrepresented the item they were returning, and then the jbhifi employee failed in their due diligence of actually making sure the item being returned was correct.

    I wouldn't classify this as receipt of stolen goods.

    I would ask the police officer -

    1. Was the item in question purchased legally ?
    2. Was the item sold to you legally ?
    3. If they committed fraud on returning an empty box, that has nothing to do with you.
    4. That is a problem between jbhifi and the party committing the fraud. You should not be held responsible for the actions of the fraudulent party after the fact.
    • JimmyF on 14/05/2020 - 22:44
      +6

      when they sold it to you they were the legitimate owner.

      You assume the following happened

      • Purchased iphone from jb
      • Sold iphone to OP
      • Returned empty box

      That would take many hours/days to complete, and wouldn't allow the scam to work the seller had been playing on jb.

      I'm guessing what would have happened to make this 'scam' work would have been

      • Purchased iphone from jb
      • Drive straight to other jb store
      • Returned empty box they just purchased only moments ago that they just 'got it', claiming no phone.
      • Take their time to sell the iphone to OP etc

      The seller returned the empty box, yes its fraud, and that iphone becomes stolen goods.

      • echelon6 on 15/05/2020 - 18:32
        +1

        Pretty interesting how a slight change in the order of operations by the scammer would change the OP's situation dramatically. If scammer sold phone to OP before returning box to JBHifi, good title would've been passed onto OP.

        • kiitos on 15/05/2020 - 20:10

          Yeah, this thread has been very educational and eye-opening.

  • tsunamisurfer on 14/05/2020 - 22:15

    An individual cannot pass a better title than she has, and a buyer can acquire no better title than that of the seller. A thief does not have title in stolen goods, so a person who purchases from the thief does not acquire title.

    • paraneoplastic on 14/05/2020 - 22:39
      +9

      Yes but the title was purchased legally in the first place. The return should be inconsequential to the chain of ownership - since the JB worker didn't do their due diligence to check the box. The "Thief" commited fraud not theft.

      • gromit on 15/05/2020 - 11:42
        -2

        The title was returned to the store even if the goods were not.

        • cameldownunder on 15/05/2020 - 13:50

          Has the receipt been invalidated ? If not one could argue that the receipt is the title for that phone.
          If the receipt was invalidated, then OP would have acquired an invalid title to the phone.

        • UFO on 15/05/2020 - 17:00
          +1

          The title was returned to the store even if the goods were not.

          Yes, but when?
          If the crook sold the phone to OP BEFORE he went to claim a refund, then the title was passed to OP first.

          • gromit on 15/05/2020 - 17:09

            @UFO: The scam described in this is a common one and well detailed on scam websites (assuming it is the common variant). generally they buy the device from one store, use a razor and new shrink wrap if needed to make it appear like the box is unopened, put in something of the same weight so it doesn't appear light, then go back to the same or even another store usually within an hour or so to avert suspicious and make it less likely for them to closely inspect or open the box, with a story like "bought it as gift, but found my girlfriend went and got one already" or "bought as replacement for lost phone but it just got found". The longer you had it for the more likely it is to be inspected closely. So yeah if he returned the box after selling the buyer is in the clear, but I would think that is less likely.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join