Two sides to a story about recovered stolen coins
kranky
Posts: 8,709 ✭✭✭
True story, some of you may have read about it already. I removed the names.
Side 1:
The victim had some coins stolen from his car in 1989. A police report was filed but heard nothing over the next 13 years. A dealer had seen the coins the day before the theft. A lady walks into the dealer's shop recently to sell some coins that she "had had for about 14 years." The dealer remembers the theft from 13 years prior and strongly suspects the coins were the ones stolen. Not mentioning his suspicions, the dealer buys the coins and calls the victim. The victim had photos and went to the dealer's shop. The coins were still in the victim's holders and were positively identified as the stolen coins. The victim offered the dealer more than the dealer paid the lady, but the dealer would only accept what he paid for the coins.
The dealer knew the coins were worth considerably more than he offered but he was trying to give her a fair price while keeping the victim in mind in case they were his coins. The victim praises the dealer for his honesty and ethical handling of the situation.
Side 2:
The behavior of the dealer who bought the coins was extremely unethical, if not illegal. Shouldn't the dealer have notified the police? It's illegal to traffic in stolen property. Is it honest and ethical to pay a seller considerably less than what the coins were worth? We don't know if the lady was ignorant of the value of the coins or whether she accepted a lowball price because they were hot. Why didn't the victim notify the police so the thief could possibly be caught? Couldn't that have possibly prevented other thefts?
I'm not taking sides, but interested in the opinions of the board.
Side 1:
The victim had some coins stolen from his car in 1989. A police report was filed but heard nothing over the next 13 years. A dealer had seen the coins the day before the theft. A lady walks into the dealer's shop recently to sell some coins that she "had had for about 14 years." The dealer remembers the theft from 13 years prior and strongly suspects the coins were the ones stolen. Not mentioning his suspicions, the dealer buys the coins and calls the victim. The victim had photos and went to the dealer's shop. The coins were still in the victim's holders and were positively identified as the stolen coins. The victim offered the dealer more than the dealer paid the lady, but the dealer would only accept what he paid for the coins.
The dealer knew the coins were worth considerably more than he offered but he was trying to give her a fair price while keeping the victim in mind in case they were his coins. The victim praises the dealer for his honesty and ethical handling of the situation.
Side 2:
The behavior of the dealer who bought the coins was extremely unethical, if not illegal. Shouldn't the dealer have notified the police? It's illegal to traffic in stolen property. Is it honest and ethical to pay a seller considerably less than what the coins were worth? We don't know if the lady was ignorant of the value of the coins or whether she accepted a lowball price because they were hot. Why didn't the victim notify the police so the thief could possibly be caught? Couldn't that have possibly prevented other thefts?
I'm not taking sides, but interested in the opinions of the board.
New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.
0
Comments
Obscurum per obscurius
peacockcoins
Tough situation any way you look at it. Need Solomon to sort it out.
Russ, NCNE
PS-There are a whole different set of laws pertaining to pawn shops that do not apply to coin dealers. Pawn shops are required to keep detailed records of everything purchased, and if they buy stolen goods, the police can confiscate the property and the pawn shop is out the money. That is why pawn shops offer such low prices when they buy goods.
-Just ask the U.S. Government regarding the 1933 Saint!
peacockcoins
Of course if the coins were insured and the collector was paid for them, the insurance company owns the stolen coins, and could re-coup them from the collector if he/she has not re-paid the claim.
The ethical ? is whether or not the victim has been paid by an insurance company and even if he was it probably wasn't for the full value anyway but that is no concern of the coin dealer. The dealer did right.
Looking for PCGS AU58 Washington's, 32-63.
-or-
Could it have been the dealer? He held onto those coins, in a back room somewhere and decided to make some money by selling back to who he stole them from....
-or-
Perhaps the Butler was in on this?
Just my 2 Wheat Pennies...
-Dave
If everything was on the up and up... The dealer did the right thing by contacting the customer. I don't think the customer was obligated to pay as he reported them stolen and could have just called the police to report the dealer was in possession of his stolen coins. It was nice to see the customer gave the dealer a "reward"... although the "Reward" was money out of the dealers pocket.
If I was the dealer and I thought this *could* be the stolen coins, I would have attempted to get "indentification" from the lady, tell her it was standard practice....
-or- he could have asked the lady if he could review them for a day, give her a recipe and tell her he would call her tomorrow.... then contact the customer and find out if these were his stolen coins. No money out of his pocket and the customer could have claimed them.
Where is this article? I'd like to read it!
-David
The "side 2" viewpoint was from a reader's letter in this week's (Sept. 10 issue) NN.
New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.
The dealer did the absolute right thing in getting them as cheap as possible and then informing the owner and returning them to him for what he had paid.
Who knows what information has been given the police in this matter. Nothing has been reported about that aspect of it, and in all likelihood, that dealer had valuable information to give to the police and would have. There is probably an investigation going on right now.
If any of you think coin dealers will always pay(what you think is) a fair price for what they buy, you're crazy. They stay in business by buying low and selling high. They won't pay any more than they have to.
Just a little while ago the 1866 Proof no motto quarter and half dollar were recovered that had been stolen at gunpoint in the DuPont robbery.
The California coin dealers that bought them paid around $150 each for them. Of course they claimed they didn't know they were worth very much, but it just goes to show that dealers don't pay any more than they have to. These weren't little flaky vest pocket dealers neither, they were major big time dealers.
Quarter and Half info
Ray
Edited for bilkingnut's benefit; These were Hobo nickles. Each one is unique.
Since a thief never has clear title, anyone else in the chain of ownership cannot obtain clear title. The woman could have reclaimed the coins through a legal action called replevin and not had to pay the dealer at all.
HOWEVER in order to protect innocent buyers, legislatures have enacted time limits, known as statutes of limitations, on which claims can be made. At some point commerce has to be able to continue. This works to the thief’s advantage as well, because after this time limit (usually 3-5 years) it is as if no crime had ever been committed. Crime does pay.
The dealer was under no obligation to notify the police or the victim. Since the time limit had passed, they were his coins to do with as he pleased. The dealer was under no obligation to return the coins to the woman. His defense to any replevin action is the statute of limitations.
The fact that he chose to offer them to the victim at all, let alone at his cost, was a moral decision not a legal requirement. If the victim decides to pay money now for the coins she had stolen from her 14 years ago, that is her choice. But the dealer is the legal owner.
Calling the police would not have done any good, because now it as if there was no crime committed 14 years ago. Everybody moved on with their lives.
Even though the statute of limitations seems to benefit the theif the idea is to protect future innocents. Say that the original owner of the store sold it 10 years ago. Last week the thief comes into the store and the new owner buys the coins and puts them on display. The victim comes in and sees them and says "Hey those are mine, give them back" should he? (The answer is No).
My posts viewed
since 8/1/6
If the collector wanted to replace the coins he could have bought replacements from anywhere.
I would not be happy buying back something that I had already paid for once. I would have told the dealer to keep them.
The dealers story seems fishy too me. Everytime I have sold coins to a dealer they give me a check and take my name address and phone number. If I am selling over $1000 dollars worth of stuff they ask for my SS number for tax records.
It seemed to me, when I read the second article today, that the author may have had a sour feeling for either the dealer or mister Fivaz, or both...could be wrong? JMO
Gary
Placid - these were allegedly "original Hobo Nickels" and obviously aren't as easily replaced as some other series of coins/exonumia, whatever that are categorized as.
To whoever - supposedly the items were still in the sealed packaging with Bill's handwriting on them. Proof of ownership would not have been so difficult. If I remember correctly, the lady who sold them wasn't the original owner; they were left to her allegedly.
I think the most significant part of this is that the dealer who bought them, is/was a friend of Bill's, remembered the theft and this was primarily his state of mind when approached in the initial transaction; that is of course according to him and Bill. I wasn't there. According to Bill's article, payment was to reimburse the dealer for his expenditures; seems the gentlemanly thing to do.
Statute of limitations or not, if he hasn't, I would still contact the authorities and let them determine what is/isn't appropriate.
Edited to add: Here in PA, I think (as I said I am no lawyer) pawn shop, coin shop, jeweler not matter. If you are in the business of buying items from the public, certain information is required to be gathered to preclude, to preclude the wholesale transfer and profit from stolen property. If you want to stay in a reputable business that is.
Although I am not familiar with the original story dakra makes an interesting observation. Seems tough to remember coins after 14 years.
I think the dealer did the right thing, I guess, but should have gotten the sellers ID in the process of the sale.
matt
edit for opinion
Sorry if I sound asinine, but I read the articles, and I just can't even fathom the conclusions some of you are drawing. I'll shut up on this issue now.
The real story aside, it could have been the dealer.
Hey Relayer - everyone isn't a lawyer and I doubt the dealer knew half of what you are taliking about; I suppose he could also have a legal background though. In any event, all that you mention would require a legal decision; law doesn't appear to ever be that black and white. Additionally, if you are a lawyer (I think you indicated that you are), wouldn't it behoove you to verify that what you are stating as fact is applicable in the state(s) where the crimes took place?
Any businessman operating a store that buys items from the public should be aware of the laws the relate to their business. Pawn shops for the most part are regulated and require the seller to provide ID. They are fully aware that if they buy stolen property, it can be taken from them without compensation. Which is exactly why they want to know who they bought it from.
The concept of replevin and the statute of limitations is common in all 50 states, though the time period changes based on the laws enacted by each states legislatures.
Say my grandfather had an 1920 $20 gold piece stolen 80 years ago. It was since spent many times then a collector takes it out of circulation and it changes owners many times since. Do you think he has a legal right it today if he saw it? What if you inheritted it from your grandfather who bought it in good faith 50 years ago, can I come take your coin today?
The concept that at some point stolen property becomes marketable is only meant to protect buyers, not the theives. So for the greater good, sometimes the theives get to win. We have to let the OJ's go free sometimes in order to prevent the innocent from going to jail.
I'm not a lawyer (but I play one on TV) and know a lot of different things, except how to grade coins.
My posts viewed
since 8/1/6
Another theory (not accusations, just a theory).. dealer "A" shows dealer "B" some very cool coins. Dealer "B" then arranges for those coins to be stolen, and holds onto them for years. Dealer "B" then calls up Dealer "A" and claims that he has retrieved the stolen coins and, for just a small pittance of what they're really worth, Dealer "A" can get his coins back.
To cheat an insurance company? Come on, if that were the case would they put it in national coin collecting magazines that they were retrieved so the insurance company could come back and either claim them or get their money back.
Come up with a reason or don't slam Bill Fivaz. He's a good and decent person and has done and is doing a lot for the hobby.
I absoultly believe him. I also completely believe the dealer was being totally honest. If he had anything to do with the theft, he'd have had 13 years to dispose of them. Coins shows are lively places and most purchases are with cash. He could have sold them 1 or 2 at a time over the years and got fair market value for them.
Ray
Am I the only one who laughed after reading this question?
On another note, is there anyone who is familiar with the rules for pawn shops in Florida? I seem to recall a 60 Minutes story on the subject. They indicated that if a pawn shop purchased an item from an individual who provided identification and a signature, then the title to the item legally passed to the pawn shop. Needless to say, a lot of locals were very upset that the only way to retrieve their stolen property was to buy it back from the pawn shop.
<< <i>Any businessman operating a store that buys items from the public should be aware of the laws the relate to their business. Pawn shops for the most part are regulated and require the seller to provide ID. They are fully aware that if they buy stolen property, it can be taken from them without compensation. Which is exactly why they want to know who they bought it from. >>
<< <i>On another note, is there anyone who is familiar with the rules for pawn shops in Florida? I seem to recall a 60 Minutes story on the subject. They indicated that if a pawn shop purchased an item from an individual who provided identification and a signature, then the title to the item legally passed to the pawn shop. Needless to say, a lot of locals were very upset that the only way to retrieve their stolen property was to buy it back from the pawn shop. >>
Steve is quite correct and here's the govenring Florida Statute subsection...
F.S. 539.001
<< <i>2. While a hold order is in effect, the pawnbroker must upon request release the property subject to the hold order to the custody of the appropriate law enforcement official for use in a criminal investigation. The release of the property to the custody of the appropriate law enforcement official is not considered a waiver or release of the pawnbroker's property rights or interest in the property. Upon completion of the criminal proceeding, the property must be returned to the pawnbroker unless the court orders other disposition. When such other disposition is ordered, the court shall additionally order the conveying customer to pay restitution to the pawnbroker in the amount received by the conveying customer for the property together with reasonable attorney's fees and costs. >>
TRUTH
<< <i>If the insurance company paid off the claim by the victim, doesn't the ownership of the coins now reside with the insurance company and not the victim? Isn't the victim being compensated twice? >>
Yep! However, under certain circumstances an insurance company may give a 'quit claim' to the insured/claimant if the insurer believes that the recovered chattel has no residual value. Doesn't come up much but it does happen.
FBI Website - Stolen Paintings
ritchie