Would You Buy Stolen Goods at a Big Discount?

Fat Horny Ghost on 13/03/2024 - 14:21
Last edited 13/03/2024 - 14:26

I recently came across this article of someone organising a theft ring and then selling stolen goods from Sephora, Sunglass Hut on Amazon for a significant discount off retail value.

https://nypost.com/2024/03/12/us-news/san-diego-mom-mastermi…

If you and others aren't aware of it being stolen, I'm sure the deals would still be ozbargained.

But if you knew the goods were stolen, would you still buy them from online sites such as Amazon?

Note that it's a maximum 10 year jail sentence for receiving stolen goods

So if you don't buy stolen goods at a discount, how much due diligence do you put in to ensure its not stolen?

https://www.armstronglegal.com.au/criminal-law/nsw/offences/….

Poll Options

  • 104
    Yes I want a bargain, I'd buy it regardless
  • 495
    No I wouldn't buy
Fashion & Apparel

Comments

  • barge-in hunter on 13/03/2024 - 14:23
    +90

    If you know or reasonably suspect you’re buying stolen goods, you’re breaking the law. No thanks

    • reactor-au on 14/03/2024 - 09:12
      +24

      Would also be supporting crime.

      And then also complaining that crime is everywhere and the police aren't doing enough.

      • jrvb42 on 14/03/2024 - 23:13
        +1

        One could argue the case that political, and many other, organisations are operating outside the realms of justice, if not the law. When that becomes apparent to the populace, they start to care less about the laws themselves. I'm not there yet personally, still live in hope. Stupidly, I know. Just marking time until the revolution.

        • reactor-au on 14/03/2024 - 23:35
          +7

          Having lived in other countries, I can attest that once we let the small things slide, it just leads to a slow erosion of morals, values, and ultimately the laws.
          It's a bad idea.
          Even if the government is useless we shouldn't use that as an excuse to care less.

          • Hangryuman on 15/03/2024 - 16:55
            +2

            @reactor-au: 'once we let the small things slide, it just leads to a slow erosion of morals, values, and ultimately the laws'

            yes - Scandinavian game theory research found that societies tend to collapse unless good people go out of their way - at a cost to themselves - to ensure others do the right thing.

            Which I keep in mind when I'm the only one making an effort to stop troublemakers in my local community.

            Result - our location is often regarded as a 'best place to live' and tenants have told me they love living here and would really like to buy here.

            For a contrast, this is my favourite 8.5 minute video explaining 'Why Some Countries Are Poor and Others Rich | The School of Life' - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMUjR7TBv6M

    • RefusdClassification on 14/03/2024 - 21:55
      +7

      Laws, private property, and even morality are just social constructs. Tribal societies like the Aboriginals didn't have private property laws and probably wouldn't even understand the concept. Commununism is a stateless, moneyless, private-property less society. Slavery was legal in most ancient societies and even some mediaeval ones. Pedophilia was legal and socially acceptable in Ancient Greece and Rome, and more recently in places like Afghanistan (read up on Bacha bazi). In some countries, like the PRC, there are laws making it illegal to criticize the government. In some countries VPNs are illegal. Homosexuality is illegal in many countries, and glamorized in other countries.Heroin, cocaine, morphine, marijuana and magic mushrooms were legal in Western societies until partway through the 20th century. Alcohol was made illegal in America by a Constitutional amendment, then undone with another amendment a decade later. Polygamy is legal among Muslims but outlawed in Christian countries (Mormons believed in polygamy though, but were persecuted for it); King Solomon had 700 wives and 2300 concubines. What I am trying to demonstrate is that right and wrong vary depending upon time and place. It is wrong to think that modern American laws and values are the only right values and all other values are wrong (study post-modernism, before the post-modernists became Woke bigots who believe they have a monopoly on right and wrong).

      Most people pick and choose the laws the want to obey. Many people J-Walk. Some people accelerate when they see an orange light rather than decelerate. Lots of people practise tax minimization. Some people (including myself) sometimes make unauthorized copies of copyrighted works. OzBargainers use VPNs to get cheaper regional pricing by pretending to be from a poor country, and lie about their country of residence to avoid paying the government a 10% sales tax on overseas purchases like software). Some peole use tools to bypass DRM. Many people purchase illicit substances. If you want to dramatically decrease burglaries (and the cost of housing people in jails), legalize drugs and sell them at cost price + 10% GST.

      • jrvb42 on 14/03/2024 - 23:15
        +1

        A long post, but with many valid points. Thank you.

      • JDMcarfan on 15/03/2024 - 12:34
        +1

        If you want to dramatically decrease burglaries (and the cost of housing people in jails), legalize drugs and sell them at cost price + 10% GST.

        Take my vote for PM

      • Alley Cat on 15/03/2024 - 14:26

        Really resonates with this dude https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qwRl-2_pHSA and many other guests on that show. Morality is both relative and personal.

      • rentonc on 15/03/2024 - 18:03

        Ok cool, that can all be true.

        However in the case under consideration here, if you were to steal some product from Michelle Mack (original perpetrator) then to fit in with the proposed social constructs her reaction should be "oh ok that's fine I don't mind". In reality I can't see that being her reaction.

  • bobbified on 13/03/2024 - 14:28
    +18

    "I don't know nothing!"

    • CyberMurning on 13/03/2024 - 14:29
      -8

      I speak no english too

      • cameldownunder on 14/03/2024 - 10:40

        I speak no english too No Englis

    • djones145 on 13/03/2024 - 14:50
      +7

      "its my first day"

      • zomgbargain on 15/03/2024 - 12:44

        quack, quack, quack

    • krisspy on 14/03/2024 - 13:00
      +4

      I dindu nuffin

    • Hangryuman on 15/03/2024 - 16:57

      "I don't know nothing!"

      or my favourite in US cop videos where an offender is arrested and immediately shouts "I didn't do nothing!"

      double negative makes a positive - arrest - thank you - tell that to the judge … ;-)

  • Cheaplikethebird on 13/03/2024 - 14:31
    +39

    My thinking is that someone selling stolen goods probably doesn't have the morals to not also try and sell me counterfeit goods.

    • Sammy2000 on 13/03/2024 - 14:51
      +7

      Or broken, incomplete, tampered with, no warranty, not worth it.

    • infinite on 13/03/2024 - 21:28

      Bingo.

      Stolen goods are also often damaged goods from the methods used to obtain them in the first place.

      • jrvb42 on 14/03/2024 - 23:16

        Well yeah, anything that "fell off the back of a truck" might well be damaged.

      • pegaxs on 13/03/2024 - 14:51
        +11

        I beg to differ.

        Buying fakes is more akin to "piracy/counterfeiting/copyright", because the original items are not removed and are still available for sale, they are merely copied. I also think that the people that buy the fakes would never buy the real thing anyway (think of bogans wearing knock off Gucci and Prada) so there would never be that exchange for a genuine item for cash from these people anyway…

        So, no, copyright infringement is not the same as stealing items from a store and selling them.

        To think of it another way… Imagine parking your car in the street and someone comes past and steals it at night… but in the morning, it's still where you left it, because they just made a copy of it. Is it still theft/stolen?

        (Also, not my negs, because I still believe that the theft is of an "idea", just not of the actual product. But again, the owner of the original idea still has the idea, it's not like the copycat has "stolen" anything… But it's still a shit thing to do…)

        • us3rnam3tak3n on 14/03/2024 - 09:26
          -1

          In your car analogy, the victim of theft is not the owner but the manufacturer. It's just harder to sympathise with multibillion dollar global corporates.

    • AustriaBargain on 13/03/2024 - 14:52

      Fashion can't be copyrighted. You can produce identical glasses to Rayban or bag as Gucci as long as you don't copy the trademarked name, call them Raybon or Coochi, or just don't have a brand on them at all.

      • activ8newbs on 13/03/2024 - 15:28
        +1

        Did you just pull this fact out of thin air? Or is there some truth to this?

        • AustriaBargain on 13/03/2024 - 15:41
          +4

          There's truth to this. You could spend 10,000 hours designing this totally cool jacket and the moment you show it to the world there will be identical looking copies. Maybe you patent some things you invent for the jacket, but the design and look of the jacket itself can't be copy protected. But trademarks are protected, which is why Gucci bags are covered with the trademarked G logo. Someone can clone the bag, but they technically aren't allowed to clone the trademarked logo. Which is why good fakes with the logo being copied are only sold at the wharf markets from the boot of a car and not in high street. It's not really a big problem anyway. If it can't have the trademarked name on it then it would obviously look like a fake and who wants to be seen wearing a fake. Only people who can't afford the real thing anyway.

          • activ8newbs on 13/03/2024 - 15:59

            @AustriaBargain: Just spent 15 mins down a rabbit hole…geez.. copyright and trademark stuff is weird! And interesting. Found a Macca's trade mark for the word "big Mac" just then. Written messily on a 1960s notepad and uploaded to the trademark portal thingy.

            Do you have a source for the fact that copying a design as long as it's not the trademarked part of the logo can not be copyrighted?

            • AustriaBargain on 13/03/2024 - 16:17
              +3

              @activ8newbs: Recipes also can't be copyrighted, you can't prevent someone from using a recipe anyway. For fashion you can register it for design protection in Australia. You automatically lose copyright if you manufacture more than 50 of something, it stops being protected automatically as ac creative work, so design protection is the only avenue you have to protect fashion designs.

              • Crow K on 13/03/2024 - 16:54
                +1

                @AustriaBargain: Recipes, once recorded, are absolutely protected by copyright.

                Source: copyright.org.au

                • AustriaBargain on 13/03/2024 - 17:02
                  -4

                  @Crow K: Yeah sure if you write down a recipe what you write down is copyrighted, same as if you wrote the great Australian novel. But the recipe itself, the actual process of making the food, is not subject to copyright and anyone could recreate it and sell that food. It's why there are trade secrets, to keep the recipe an unpublished secret so other people can't make that food not because any law is preventing them, but just because they don't know how to make it, they don't know the secret ingredients and process that you used. If you published your recipe, or if they saw you make it, or if they just figure it out themselves then they can sell food based on the original recipe that you invented and popularised. It's why the 11 executives of KFC each know only one of the secret herbs and spices and they never fly in the same plane together. If they all died at once then the secret recipe would be lost forever.

                  • Crow K on 13/03/2024 - 17:04
                    +3

                    @AustriaBargain: Look, it's great that you're free associating between concepts of secret knowledge and trade secrets and copyright and publication and observable processes, but I really prefer my facts to be correct.

                    So you know, saying "recipes can't be copyrighted" is either ignorant or stupid (or perhaps both).

                    • AustriaBargain on 13/03/2024 - 17:08
                      -2

                      @Crow K: In Australia, the protection of recipes under copyright law is an interesting topic. Let’s explore it:

                      Copyright and Recipes:
                      When you document a recipe (for example, by writing it down or recording it), it automatically receives copyright protection. This protection applies to the creative expression of the recipe, not merely the idea itself.
                      So, if you create a unique recipe and write it down, the written expression is likely protected by copyright12.
                      Extent of Protection:
                      Copyright can safeguard the way a recipe is written, including the specific instructions, descriptions, and creative elements.
                      However, it does not extend to the actual process of making the recipe or the ingredients used.
                      For instance:
                      If you invent a burger with a specific arrangement of ingredients (like your bun, beef, spicy mayo, star-shaped pickles, and cheese), the written recipe detailing this arrangement is protected.
                      But if someone else independently creates the same burger without copying your written recipe, they are not infringing on your copyright.
                      Similarly, if you invent a secret spicy sauce recipe, others can’t sell the exact same sauce based on your recipe, but they can create a similar one using their own expression and ingredients34.
                      Trade Secrets and Alternatives:
                      While copyright protects the written expression, some recipes may also qualify as trade secrets.
                      To enhance protection, consider other measures such as:
                      Non-compete clauses: These prevent others from directly competing with your recipe.
                      Privacy policies, non-disclosure agreements, and confidentiality clauses: These can help safeguard your recipe’s uniqueness and prevent unauthorized disclosure.
                      In summary, while copyright protects the creative expression of your recipes, the actual ingredients and cooking process remain open for others to use independently. If you want to maintain exclusivity, explore additional legal avenues beyond copyright.

                      • Crow K on 13/03/2024 - 17:10
                        +1

                        @AustriaBargain: Yes, that is copying and pasting from the source I revealed when I contradicted you, pity you hadn't seen it sooner etc.

                        Probably a lot quicker to just admit to being wrong? Or are you whipping up another recipe of AustriaBargain's Word Salad?

                        • AustriaBargain on 13/03/2024 - 18:14
                          -2

                          @Crow K: It's like if you wrote a book about how to put on your pants, the book about putting on your pants is copyrighted, but the act of putting on your pants as you described is not. I could start charging peopel money to put on their pants as you described in your book and you couldn't do anything about it.

                          • Crow K on 13/03/2024 - 18:36
                            +3

                            @AustriaBargain: I know how it works (that's how I knew you were wrong in the first place).

                            Save these exploratory comments for anyone who 1. knows less on the subject than you do and 2. wants to hear you (should you be able to find someone who fits that criteria)

                            • AustriaBargain on 13/03/2024 - 18:45
                              -2

                              @Crow K: You might need to spell out what you mean by

                              "recipes can't be copyrighted" is either ignorant or stupid (or perhaps both)

                              Are you arguing that the recipe book or page can be copyrighted, but the recipe itself cannot? It might help if you tell me what you think a recipe is. Is it a story that is written down, or is it the act of following the story in the real world to create a meal?

                              • Crow K on 13/03/2024 - 18:54
                                -2

                                @AustriaBargain: I was quoting you.

                                If you want to find the source of your confusion, as always, look inwards, grasshopper.

                                • AustriaBargain on 13/03/2024 - 18:56

                                  @Crow K: The day isn't long enough for this.

                                  • Crow K on 13/03/2024 - 18:59
                                    +1

                                    @AustriaBargain: Sorry for wasting your valuable time by telling you stop misexplaining copyright law to me directly.

                                    Also sorry the "that's dumb and wrong and I'm not interested in your uneducated takes" red flags didn't serve their purpose

                              • Crow K on 14/03/2024 - 08:23
                                +1

                                @AustriaBargain:

                                It might help if you tell me what you think a recipe is. Is it a story that is written down, or is it the act of following the story in the real world to create a meal?

                                Well, the first sense you mention is recipe as a noun, meaning a recorded list of ingredients and instructions. This is what I, and everyone else, mean when they say "recipe".

                                And the second sense you mention is recipe as a verb, meaning "to follow a list of ingredients and instructions". Let's use that in a sentence and see if it's a thing. "I had better get the cookbook out, my memory isn't so good and I'm going to try to recipe later today for dinner".

                                Nope, not a thing.

                                So did you present that as an option because you think recipe as a verb exists or is it easier to pretend there's confusion over what you meant when you said "recipes can't be copyrighted"?

                                • AustriaBargain on 16/03/2024 - 01:21

                                  @Crow K: Julia Child, American TV chef, could taste a meal a single time and then know the recipe just from the look and taste of it. Would she be breaking copyright if she tasted a Big Mac and then, without ever seeing the written recipe, she made her own identical burger following the recipe in her head and called it the Big Jules?

                                  What if she did see it written in detail, and then she rewrote it herself with all the same steps, but phrased in her own completely unique way, would that be breaking copyright?

                                  What if she bought a recipe book, tore the page out and stuck it on her cubicle wall at the factory and looked at it every day to make a million cupcakes a day sold in every supermarket in the country, would she be breaking copyright?

                                  If someone says you've got a recipe for disaster when you work together, do you go looking around for a piece of paper or a book with ink markings on it that spell out that recipe?

                                  • Crow K on 17/03/2024 - 14:25

                                    @AustriaBargain: I don't know why you're so desperate to prove to us all how little you actually understand what copyright is, but for anyone playing at home, the answers are follows:

                                    1. No, making a Big Mac in your kitchen based off guesswork is not something that breaks copyright. Because copyright concerns republishing someone else's written work with/without permission, and cooking a burger is not an act of publication.
                                    2. Rephrasing the steps probably would turn it into a new published work (depending on how much you change, ofc) and so wouldn't break copyright.
                                    3. Reading someone else's recipe is, shockingly, not a breach of copyright. If anyone was worried about getting into legal problems for reading recipes, you can rest assured. Thanks for the excellent question, AustriaB, it's important to confirm these complex scenarios.
                                    4. No, if someone used the word "recipe" in a sentence as a metaphor, I wouldn't try to find a book or piece of paper. I have a well developed understanding of what a recipe is, which was why I was able to answer your intelligent, thought-provoking questions.
                                    • AustriaBargain on 17/03/2024 - 14:34

                                      @Crow K: So when you make brownies following your mother's recipe that she told you when you were a kid, then you think the brownies you bake are metaphorical brownies?

                                      • Crow K on 17/03/2024 - 15:24

                                        @AustriaBargain: So your question is: when I follow a literal recipe, do I believe the product I make following the recipe is metaphorical? Really?

                                        Aren't you the person who wanted to disengage because "the day wasn't long enough" or whatever?

                                        Why are you finding the time to be deliberately obtuse in front of everyone? Are you worried there's still people here who might value your thoughts?

                                        Don't worry, there aren't.

                                        • AustriaBargain on 17/03/2024 - 15:29

                                          @Crow K: You're the one who called it metaphysical recipe, now it's a literal recipe? Feels like you just want to argue and you want both goals on the field to be yours.

                                          • Crow K on 17/03/2024 - 15:48

                                            @AustriaBargain: You gave an example of someone using recipe as a metaphor ("you two are a recipe for destruction") and asked if I would look for an actual literal recipe book.

                                            This discussion flowed from there, and your confusion, as always, streams from within.

                                            • AustriaBargain on 17/03/2024 - 16:25

                                              @Crow K: Regardless, feels like you are being deliberately obtuse. "Akshually, a recipe book can be copyrighted". Well duh, books, opens, pages, essays you write are copyrighted of course, what are you adding to the dialogue here with such banal observations?

                                              • Crow K on 17/03/2024 - 18:36

                                                @AustriaBargain: One of the hallmarks of the stupid is they don't understand deeper concepts, and can't appreciate the subtle (and usually not so subtle) differences.

                                                Someone will be talking about a process, but they'll use the word "recipe" to describe it, and then they'll use the word "copyright" (concerning the rights to reproduce published works) to describe it as well. And so on.

                                                Because "by recipe I meant process and by copyright I meant patent of course" or whatever else is rattling around in their head at that moment. It's up to the smarter people to step in and read their disordered minds and extract the meaning. The meaning they themselves they cannot convey (because they're either ignorant, or dumb, or perhaps both).

                                                It's a thankless task because they've been humiliated and will likely lash out in similarly confused ways. "Maybe I wasn't wrong after all, maybe the word means something else".

                                                In reality it's just continued opportunities to show everyone how addled they really are. Someone mentioned a "metaphorical recipe"? What an excellent time to refer to a "metaphysical recipe", because it's probably the same thing. That big word starts with the same sounds, it's probably the same thing.

                                                And if it's not, "well, duh, OBVIOUSLY I was referring to something else". And the cycle repeats.

                                                The path to escaping ignorance is education. Learning what the words mean, using them correctly, not relying on others to do your thinking for you.

                                                But that requires ability and effort. You lack one or the other. Or perhaps both.

                                                • AustriaBargain on 17/03/2024 - 19:07

                                                  @Crow K: Are you okay my dude? I'm really not interested in convincing you I really believe that a written down recipe is just a subset of the greater concept of a recipe. I'm not going to do this with you.

                                                  • Crow K on 17/03/2024 - 19:11

                                                    @AustriaBargain: It's all sunshine and cartwheels over here, my dude. Hope you're having a great time too.

                                                    I'm glad you're not interested in attempting to convince me you have knowledge on this subject. It would have been a fool's errand (we both know you do not).

                          • johnno07 on 16/03/2024 - 01:01
                            +1

                            @AustriaBargain: This is such a bizarre conversation.

                            AB: says something that is false.
                            CR: corrects with a source.
                            AB: talks some nonsense about KFC.
                            CR: calls AB ignorant and/or stupid.
                            AB: tries to explain the concept that they didn't understand to CR, who already understands it, using the source CR supplied.
                            …
                            and so on.

                            Just odd.

                            • Crow K on 17/03/2024 - 14:09
                              +1

                              @johnno07: Why admit you're wrong when you can invent word salad that displays you actually have a very detailed, and perhaps superior, knowledge on the subject, etc etc.

                              If it was an important discussion I might understand better the attempt to avoid psychic damage but.. it's really just getting pathetic now. None of this would have happened if they had said "ok okay, I learned something today".

                              They've always been odd like this, tbh. The attempt to gaslight me with the "I'm curious to see what you think the word recipe means" is the icing on the cake, though.

                      • Hangryuman on 15/03/2024 - 16:59
                        +1

                        @AustriaBargain: In the West, copyright means 'the right to copy'

                        In China, copyright means 'did I copy it right' ?

                  • mrkorrupt on 13/03/2024 - 18:55
                    +3

                    @AustriaBargain: the kfc thing makes no sense as there is no redundancy whether 1 dies or 11 dies that item dies with them if they only know 1 spice.

                    for redundancy each would need to know at least two, also i believe this is folklore as i dont think the execs bring in X kilo of herb each time to make the spice, it is made by someone who knows the recipe.

              • Sinnerator on 14/03/2024 - 08:47

                @AustriaBargain: does China follow Australian Design Protection laws?

            • rumblytangara on 15/03/2024 - 18:53

              @activ8newbs: There's a bit more to it than this, look up Louboutin shoes where the colour of the sole is trademarked.

              • AustriaBargain on 16/03/2024 - 01:23

                @rumblytangara: Yeah you can trademark colour. Cadbury did it with certain purple chocolate packaging. Eagle Boys did it with the pink lights at the front of their shops.

    • Jimothy Wongingtons on 13/03/2024 - 15:18
      +2

      its called a homage

      whispering to sd1970, its ok baby dont let them call you a fake

    • JIMB0 on 13/03/2024 - 16:52
      +1

      That's true where the marginal cost of producing the goods is insignificant compared to their sale price.

    • Dreamcast on 14/03/2024 - 09:25

      Fine, I'll throw away my fake Rolex :(

    • idonotknowwhy on 14/03/2024 - 16:24

      If I buy a chinese knock-off of a Nintendo Switch modchip, does that count as buying a fake/stealing? ;)

  • Fredfloresjr on 13/03/2024 - 14:38
    +2

    Big or Small discount doesn't matter. You are part of the crime.

  • AustriaBargain on 13/03/2024 - 14:51
    +2

    How could you possibly know the goods are stolen.

    • Fat Horny Ghost on 13/03/2024 - 15:01
      +1

      If it was Amazon I wouldnt think too much and assume it is legit. Which is why this article got me thinking.

      If it is something on FB Marketplace or gumtree you cant really tell especially if its been used for x years.

      Only way would to be asking for tye original purchase receipt (they may say it was a gift) or double check with Police / product scan if possible for every single purchase.

      • Jimothy Wongingtons on 13/03/2024 - 15:20
        +6

        i will never understand the logic of people buying 'brand new authentic' goods on fb/gumtree especially when its SUSPICIOUSLY cheap.
        its either fake or stolen…

        • Fat Horny Ghost on 13/03/2024 - 17:31
          +4

          It could be unwanted gifts or simply change of mind outside of return date.

          I have sold brand new headphones I didnt like before but gave a receipt for warranty purposes.

          I also still have some items sitting unopened in their original boxes from ozb impulse purchases / replacement items like gaming headphones I got from a deal but never needed a replacement yet. Also have expensive alcohol that never been opened yet.

      • Sinnerator on 14/03/2024 - 08:48

        anything on FB Marketplace is to be presumed stolen until proven otherwise

        • umyeahokay on 14/03/2024 - 10:24
          +2

          That's the dumbest thing I've read on this thread. Congratulations!

        • cloudy on 15/03/2024 - 05:13

          That’s like saying anything you write is presumed useless unless proven otherwise

  • djsweet on 13/03/2024 - 15:12
    +2

    I would normally assume products purchased from Amazon, eBay etc are legit. Even though there is the possibility of them being stolen, unless there are obvious red flags you can't be held responsible. If I was suspicious an item was stolen, I wouldn't buy it. But how you can tell from an Amazon/eBay listing I don't know. I certainly wouldn't going to extra lengths to prove it wasn't stolen, unless its a high value or frequently stolen item (phone or car for instance).

    • gromit on 13/03/2024 - 22:58
      +5

      Amazon maybe, But ebay? seriously? this is one of the biggest sites for stolen and/or fake goods. Everything from fake USB's and designer bags to stolen/pirated software keys and everything in between on there.

      • Darude Sandstorm on 15/03/2024 - 02:13

        Wild, I've never really thought about it, but ebay literally is a shonky website with junk shit like you find all over every 'emerging' country

        • beach bum on 15/03/2024 - 12:46

          On eBay I think there’s also a lot of grey market stuff , also a lot of older merchandise sold/dumped at auction and resold , some return stock and yes some small amount(I assume)of stolen stuff .
          I did see an article about some mine managers ordering huge amounts of extra power tools to resell , I assume on eBay .
          They got a slap on the wrist and maybe a slap on the back and told not to get caught again.

  • Dollar General on 13/03/2024 - 15:12
    +3

    People are buying the stolen goods, that’s why they are being stolen.

    Wouldn’t expect anyone here to admit to it. All saints here, except on there tax returns

    • djsweet on 13/03/2024 - 15:15

      You'd hope most people buying stolen goods are doing so unwittingly.

    • Deals For Days on 13/03/2024 - 20:46

      I do find it funny how people balk at petty theft but are the most creative accountants when it comes to their tax returns.

  • Cluster on 13/03/2024 - 15:12
    +1

    Receiving stolen goods is a crime. If you buy something off Amazon or eBay that's then declared stolen, it's very unlikely you will be prosecuted, but police do have the ability to confiscate the item with zero compensation to you.

    • Poor Ass on 14/03/2024 - 00:53

      It'll be like that episode of the Simpsons where Mr Bruns hands over the Trillion dollar bill

      What stolen goods?

    • cloudy on 15/03/2024 - 05:18

      Receiving stolen goods is a crime

      Can you show me the legislation which shows this?

      It is however true that you do not own the stolen goods even if you paid for it, it will still legally be owned by the original owner.

      • johnno07 on 16/03/2024 - 00:52

        If you put the sentence you typed into Google - you'll literally find it

        https://www.google.com/search?q=Receiving+stolen+goods+is+a+…

        For absence of doubt

        A person who receives tainted property, and has reason to believe it is tainted property, commits a crime.

        per s433 of the Queensland Criminal Code

        You can track down your state equivalent

        • cloudy on 16/03/2024 - 22:42

          Interesting…

          In my state..

          A person will be found guilty of the offence of handling stolen goods if they dishonestly receive goods knowing or believing them to be stolen

          Which is why I questioned OP.

          If you buy something off Amazon or eBay that's then declared stolen, it's very unlikely you will be prosecuted

          You are not dishonestly receiving the goods knowing or believing them to be stolen. You are buying them, that is not dishonesty.

          Though you can say my statement is slightly different to OPs, that was unintentional.

  • Gdsamp on 13/03/2024 - 15:19
    +10

    No but apparently iron ore and other minerals that belong to all australians are ok to dig and sell overseas

    • Poor Ass on 14/03/2024 - 00:54
      +1

      Ha yeah and we don't even get a dividend like the Alaskans do with their oil

      • gromit on 14/03/2024 - 19:13
        -2

        yeah we do, we get royalties from what they mine.

        • Poor Ass on 14/03/2024 - 19:37

          Hahahahahaha don't joke

          Where?

          • gromit on 14/03/2024 - 22:35
            -1

            @Poor Ass: It is paid to the respective state governments, ranges from 5-8% depending on state and what is being mined.

            • Poor Ass on 14/03/2024 - 22:49
              -1

              @gromit: Then that's not we as the individual

              That's the state

              • gromit on 14/03/2024 - 22:58
                +1

                @Poor Ass: the state is your proxy. like it or not. they collect on your behalf. So yes we are absolutely paid for our minerals to the tune of many billions of dollars (though arguably not enough). Australia very much survives purely on the back of mining, most don't realise how dependent we are on those royalties and taxes, though they may soon find out if China truly does go down the gurgler.

                • Poor Ass on 14/03/2024 - 23:49
                  -1

                  @gromit: nah man we don't get shit for the minerals being on the land

                  the land just gets leased out to miners to earn a profit

                  if the gov wanted to look good they would actually put some money into bank accounts of the people

                  • cloudy on 15/03/2024 - 05:22
                    +1

                    @Poor Ass: I’d be worried about governments that care about “looking good” and just handing out “free” money to their citizens.

                    Only the very simply minded believe governments can just hand out money like there is no cost or consequences.

            • jaimex2 on 15/03/2024 - 17:25
              -1

              @gromit: HAHAHA, you've never worked or spoken to anyone in mining have you?

  • jv on 13/03/2024 - 15:22
    +2

    Note that it's a maximum 10 year jail sentence for receiving stolen goods

    It also depends on what the goods are.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join