Fred Agnir said:
Just to play devil's advocate, can the person return the stolen property in the condition that he procured it without penalty? Like taking off the wrap, finish, and then busting it until unplayable?
Fred <~~~ just wondering
Well now....that's IS a tough question....but I think the answer is no. Here's what I think:
Buying and receiving stolen property is a crime, if intent can be shown. If intent cannot be shown, then it's not a crime, but the person who bought or received the stolen property would forfeit any investment in that property and it is returned to it's rightful owner. (once again, Let the buyer beware) In cases where intent is not evident, then that determination is based on whether a reasonable person would have suspected that the cue may have been stolen (for the purpose of civil proceedings). Under the law, you have some responsibility to take reasonable precautions. You can't just say "Well, as long as I don't know it's stolen, it's OK." You may not be arrested and charged with a crime, but chances are you'll lose your investment. Once the buyer finds out that the property is, in fact stolen, and that it actually rightfully belongs to someone else, then if he destroys that property he would be subject to being charged with criminal destruction of property. He would have knowingly destroyed another person's property. In that case he may not have knowingly committed a crime by buying the stolen cue, but he sure did if he decided to subsequently destroy it.
I understand that in this case Mark invested money into putting the cue back into playable condition. That does not give him a right to "undo" that if that action would deface or destroy the property. If he put "accessories" on the property that could be removed without affecting the property's condition, that would probably be OK. Once you make a permanent addition, alteration or improvement to the property then it becomes part and parcel to the property and, like the property itself becomes property of the rightful owner.
Since his purchase of the cue was technically an unlawful purchase (purchasing stolen property) he has no protection under the law. The rightful owner of the property DOES have protection under the law. If Mark could show that he purchased the cue in good faith and that the person he acquired the cue from had knowledge that it was stolen property, then he may have some recourse against that person. However, I suspect that the problem here is going to be one of elapsed time.
If the cue truly did belong to Scott and it truly was stolen, then Scott is entitled to his cue back in it's present condition and he really has no obligation to pay anything. It's unfortunate for Mark, but life isn't always exactly fair.
