MickeS
Senior HTF Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2000
- Messages
- 5,058
Ryan, thanks for the answer to the question.
I understand why they'd have to charge the buyer initially, since they don't know if he knew it was stolen or not. However, if they can't prove he knew that or had reason to believe that, it would IMO be better to let him keep what he paid for.
Since the buyer did nothing wrong and had no way of knowing he did something wrong, he shouldn't be treated like a criminal.
I can see how in theory this could prevent people from buying stolen goods, but I would think that a lot of innocent people would get in trouble for something that wasn't their fault.
/Mike
I understand why they'd have to charge the buyer initially, since they don't know if he knew it was stolen or not. However, if they can't prove he knew that or had reason to believe that, it would IMO be better to let him keep what he paid for.
Since the buyer did nothing wrong and had no way of knowing he did something wrong, he shouldn't be treated like a criminal.
I can see how in theory this could prevent people from buying stolen goods, but I would think that a lot of innocent people would get in trouble for something that wasn't their fault.
/Mike