
The Cost of Getting My Stolen Computer Back - pallian
http://thebillfold.com/2015/01/the-cost-of-getting-my-stolen-computer-back/
======
Kenji
This is weird. In my country, if a thief sells the stolen goods, the original
owner will get them back without having to pay and the person who bought them
off the thief is the one who ends up paying the bill (if the thief cannot be
found). This is the appropriate way to handle things because it
disincentivizes buying stolen goods.

EDIT: People point out to me that this was also the case here but she wanted
her computer back fast. I still don't understand why the pawn shop was allowed
to keep the laptop after the discovery that it's stolen good, and how it was
allowed to sell something it does not own. But I don't have the legal
expertise to judge this situation, it's just confusing to me.

~~~
Cthulhu_
Yeah, pawn shops are usually very wary about buying / taking stolen goods -
after all, they'd be guilty of fencing if they bought / sold the stuff. I'm
pretty sure people have to leave a copy of their ID too (or if not, they
should). Although that can be faked, of course.

Anyway, if I was a thief I'd steal something, make sure to wipe the thing as
soon as possible and power it down (due to Apple's remote location service),
then leave it for a month, maybe two, before selling it on a random online
auction / secondhand product website, preferably with a new / fake account and
through seven proxies.

And even then I'd be hesitant. Apparently the thief only got $225 for the
macbook - probably some more from the jewelry and other stuff. Is $500 worth
spending years in jail or whatever for?

Then again, $500 for some is a small fortune.

~~~
gambiting
The large "pawn" shops that most normal people frequent are probably quite
strict about the seller letting them copy their ID, and they make sure the
deal does not look sketchy. But I am sure that for every large second hand
shop there are dozens of smaller ones hidden out of sight which will buy
anything for cash, no questions asked.

~~~
DanBC
That seems like some low hanging fruit for local police stations to target.
How serious a crime is "dealing in stolen goods" in the US?

------
avalaunch
I wish the author would have tried negotiating with the pawn shop. The pawn
shop would have been out the entire 225 had she not bought the laptop back.
Realizing this she could have offered a lot less and it would have still been
in their best interest to sell it to her. She just needed to bluff a bit that
she would be willing to let the police confiscate it if the cost was going to
be over X. I bet she could have gotten it back for $50.

Also as others mentioned it's a pretty broken system that she would need to do
this at all - that her laptop would be locked up in evidence for so long. But
lemonade from lemons, ect...

EDIT: Also do we even have any proof that the pawn shop actually paid 225 for
the laptop? It's in their best interest (financially, not morally) to lie and
state a higher price. Ie. They may have profited off of selling the laptop
back to her.

~~~
emcrazyone
yea, I didn't understand how the pawn shop can hold her laptop for $225. Isn't
the pawn shop in trouble for receiving stolen merchandise? If not in trouble,
obligated to release it for free knowing it was stolen, etc...

I get she could have waited and then got it back at no cost, but why pay a fee
to get it sooner if the dam thing is sitting in a drawer not being
investigated.

Are you trying to tell me the police are waiting on her decision to
investigate or not? Seems the laptop should be evidence regardless.

~~~
avalaunch
I think they would only be in trouble if they knowingly received stolen
merchandise. It doesn't sound as if that was the case. They are obligated to
release it to free to the police, as evidence. It does indeed sound like the
police were waiting on her decision to investigate or not. They probably
understand that it's a massive headache to be without your laptop for months,
and also that there's a very low probability of catching the criminal, and
thus gave the victim a reasonable alternative to having to wait so long.

------
Someone1234
I have a question... And the more I consider this question the less "clear
cut" the answer is.

If the OP walked into the pawnbroker, asked for the laptop, and then literally
grabbed it and left ("stole it") would they get away with it? Now, knee jerk
answer is: "no that is shoplifting" but then when you consider they'd be
shoplifting their own property that the pawn broken had illegally to begin
with...

Legally (or even morally) it isn't at all clear cut. In fact I don't know how
the law would fall in this scenario. The pawn broken almost certainly couldn't
sue the OP, it would be hard to prosecute it, and possession is 9/10ths of the
law.

In fact this sounds like a super interesting question to give to a law class
to debate. I'm sure you can take the question and get five different (all
correct) answers.

~~~
chippy
It may be your property but you cannot break the law to get it back.

~~~
Someone1234
Exactly what law are they breaking? Taking their own property with them?

I didn't suggest they assaulted the clerk, threaten, or smash their way out.
Those are illegal. I just said leave.

As I said before, the more you think about this question the less black/white
or obvious it is. Your answer is a knee jerk one, but needs a doctoral
dissertation level of clarity.

~~~
frobozz
I don't know about your country, but where I'm from the theft Act 1968 seems
to cover it pretty clearly, and I am most definitely Not A Lawyer:

The basic definition of theft is given at the start 1:1 'A person is guilty of
theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the
intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal”
shall be construed accordingly.'

[http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/1](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/1)

You might immediately say that this discounts the possibility of the original
owner committing theft, but 5(1) partly defines 'belonging to another' as:

'Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or
control of it, or having in it any proprietary right or interest (not being an
equitable interest arising only from an agreement to transfer or grant an
interest).'

[http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/5](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/5)

So, the computer appears to 'belong to' the pawnbroker, as they have
possession and control of it. But let's look back to 'appropriation'.

3(1) 'Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an
appropriation, and this includes, where he has come by the property
(innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it
by keeping or dealing with it as owner.'

[http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/3](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/3)

So, regardless of who 'really' owns it, taking it from the pawnbroker (to whom
it 'belongs' under the act) is 'appropriating property belonging to another'
However, now we look at the definition of 'dishonest':

3(1)A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be
regarded as dishonest— (a)if he appropriates the property in the belief that
he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of
a third person;...'

So, if the owner believes that they have a right to take it, then they can't
be guilty of Theft. However, if the owner takes it without that belief, then
they may be. I don't imagine that it would be hard to convince a jury or
magistrate that that belief existed.

Perhaps other offences under the act are appropriate:

22(1) 'A person handles stolen goods if (otherwise than in the course of the
stealing) knowing or believing them to be stolen goods he dishonestly receives
the goods, or dishonestly undertakes or assists in their retention, removal,
disposal or realisation by or for the benefit of another person, or if he
arranges to do so.'

[http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/22](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/22)

This would imply that if you take stuff believing it to be stolen (which the
owner would have a hard time denying, as those are the grounds on which the
repossession attempt is being made), then you are guilty of "Handling Stolen
Goods"

However, looking further into the act, we see:

2(3) 'But no goods shall be regarded as having continued to be stolen goods
after they have been restored to the person from whom they were stolen or to
other lawful possession or custody, or after that person and any other person
claiming through him have otherwise ceased as regards those goods to have any
right to restitution in respect of the theft.'
[http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/24](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/24)
Therefore, it must be impossible for the owner of an item to handle stolen
goods.

Section 11 governs the offence: 'Removal of articles from places open to the
public.'

11(1) '... references in this section to a collection do not apply to a
collection made or exhibited for the purpose of effecting sales or other
commercial dealings.'

11(3) 'A person does not commit an offence under this section if he believes
that he has lawful authority for the removal of the thing in question or that
he would have it if the person entitled to give it knew of the removal and the
circumstances of it.'

[http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/11](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/11)

So it can't be that, either.

The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 gives provision for
'Low value shoplifting', this item is less than £200 so would be treated as
such. However, this is just about whether it should be dealt with by
magistrate or crown court, and requires an offence under 1(1) of the Theft
Act.

Do I get my D.Jur?

~~~
Someone1234
> The basic definition of theft is given at the start 1:1 'A person is guilty
> of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with
> the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and
> “steal” shall be construed accordingly.'

> You might immediately say that this discounts the possibility of the
> original owner committing theft, but 5(1) partly defines 'belonging to
> another' as: 'Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having
> possession or control of it, or having in it any proprietary right or
> interest (not being an equitable interest arising only from an agreement to
> transfer or grant an interest).'

Nothing dishonest about it. Plus using the logic of your argument the shop
owner is also violating that 1968 law. So arrest them both? Or was the shop
owner not "dishonest" enough but the person who originally purchased the
property and wanted it returned "dishonest?"

Seems like you're using a double standard here.

> So, the computer appears to 'belong to' the pawnbroker, as 1they have
> possession and control of it. But let's look back to 'appropriation'.

All the appropriation clause indicates is that if someone purchases property
in good faith they effectively aren't a thief under the law. But all that
means is in our scenario neither the shop keeper OR the original owner are
thieves.

In the UK, and I know this for a fact, if property is recovered it is
returned. You aren't charged for it. I know this because someone recovered
stolen goods from a CeX store (which is kind of like a Cash Converters).

Simply bringing up the appropriations clause doesn't prove (or disprove) that
the original owner would be considered a thief since you're misusing the law
anyway.

> The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 gives provision for
> 'Low value shoplifting', this item is less than £200 so would be treated as
> such. However, this is just about whether it should be dealt with by
> magistrate or crown court, and requires an offence under 1(1) of the Theft
> Act.

Doesn't apply. You cannot shoplift your own goods. Just like the hat or coat
you had on when you entered the store isn't "shoplifted" when you left the
store wearing it.

You cannot steal your own property.

> Do I get my D.Jur?

Grow up. Your post was good, that was immature.

~~~
frobozz
>Nothing dishonest about it. Plus using the logic of your argument the shop
owner is also violating that 1968 law. So arrest them both? Or was the shop
owner not "dishonest" enough but the person who originally purchased the
property and wanted it returned "dishonest?"

You evidently missed the bit where I explored the definition of dishonest.

For clarity, I'll expand here. If I go into a shop, and pose as a customer,
but then run out with it in my hand without paying, then, by a colloquial
definition of dishonesty, I will have "dishonestly appropriated" it. However
the Act specifically defines "dishonestly" in section 2 (the relevant line is
2(1) which I erroneously wrote as 3(1). See my comment above - "So, if the
owner believes that they have a right to take it, then they can't be guilty of
Theft.")

> Seems like you're using a double standard here.

In what way? For a start, I've made no assertions about the criminality or
innocence of the pawnbroker. The pawnbroker may be guilty of Handling Stolen
Goods, but is more likely to fall under the good faith statement in 3(2). All
I've stated is that the original owner is not guilty of an offence (unless by
some odd mental quirk, they took it without believing that they had a right to
do so).

> All the appropriation clause indicates is that if someone purchases property
> in good faith they effectively aren't a thief under the law

The first clause in the section describes what is appropriation (i.e. assuming
the rights of owner). The second clause is the good-faith exception you
describe.

> Simply bringing up the appropriations clause doesn't prove (or disprove)
> that the original owner would be considered a thief since you're misusing
> the law anyway.

Yes, that's why, after bringing up the appropriations section, I brought up
the dishonestly section, to show that the only situation in which the original
owner could be a thief is if they took it without believing they had a right
to do so, which would be very odd behaviour. It's also why I went on to
explore the other two offences, of which the original owner could not be
guilty either.

>Doesn't apply. You cannot shoplift your own goods. Just like the hat or coat
you had on when you entered the store isn't "shoplifted" when you left the
store wearing it.

Yes, that's what I said. '... and requires an offence under 1(1) of the Theft
Act.' In order to be considered shoplifting, it must be a theft. Since it
isn't a theft, then it isn't shoplifting. I brought it up to point out that
even though there's another act that might cover this, but doesn't, because it
refers to the Theft Act for a definition, which we have already shown, does
not apply.

------
noer
I think what a lot of people are missing is that the items were (most likely)
recovered because the pawn shop was doing its due diligence. This article
([http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2014-07-13/news/fl-pawn-
sto...](http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2014-07-13/news/fl-pawn-stolen-
property-recovery-20140712_1_pawn-shops-palm-beach-county-sheriff-property))
mentions that when an item is bought, the pawn show puts information about
that item in a database that law enforcement has access to. The author also
didn't HAVE to pay to get her laptop back. She mentions that she could have
had the police seize it as evidence, but then she would have to wait for the
resolution of the case to get it back. She paid for the privilege of getting
her laptop back sooner.

------
Eric_WVGG
A lot of the folks here who are criticizing the writer for “paying the ransom”
(of sorts) rather than let the cops take it for evidence: slow your roll and
put yourself in her shoes.

It’s not that she wanted it “fast”, it’s that the alternative was waiting
•months• for the gears of justice to turn. Furthermore, this is a person whose
income was such that she had to turn to friends to scrape together a lousy
$250 to get it back — the snow could be thawing by the time this person could
buy a new laptop OR the original was returned by the police.

Justice is for people who can afford it (or, hate the game, not the player)

------
astalwick
So, as the rightful owner of the laptop, with proof (serial numbers, receipts,
etc), could she not just have walked in, asked to see it, and walked out with
it? What are they going to do, call the police? And are the police really
going to charge her with theft of her own property?

* edit: typo

~~~
gambiting
I am surprised the Police didn't take it away and give it back to her - she
had all the proof the laptop was hers. It shouldn't be her problem that the
pawnbroker paid anything for it, it wasn't theirs.

~~~
alistairSH
The cynic in me says the police officer got a share of the $225 under the
table. Why else use an extrajudicial process for something that should be
easily resolvable within the law?

------
jkot
For similar reasons I have 5 years old HP Elitebook 2540P. It has 8 GB memory,
two ssds, lasts 9 hours on battery, dual CPU goes up to 2.6 GHz...

It costs $250 to replace it. I can leave it in hotel without ssd. And it can
take rough handling, moist exposure etc...

I found that newer laptops do not offer anything new. You shave off one 1
pound, but loose most extendability options. I might update once some 13"
laptop offers 24GB RAM.

------
larrym
Good story. However, even though she got her Mac back she was still pissed!
I'd have been doing handstands down the street!

~~~
staz
This whole story is whiny white girl first world problem

------
gambiting
That's why when getting insurance for your personal items you always ask to
have it without any excess. It costs slightly more(on mine the difference is
so small it's negligible) and it avoids stupid situations like that. She would
have just gotten the money back from the insurance and it would be it.

~~~
icebraining
Also, backups. The data is often more valuable than the device.

------
Xdes
I'm surprised the author didn't buy a cheap Chromebook or Windows Netbook and
have the MacBook taken as evidence.

------
koyote
I may be misunderstanding something but should the pawn shop not be prosecuted
for buying stolen goods?

~~~
bluedino
You have to prove that the pawn shop knew that the items were stolen.

~~~
danielweber
Plus, it was the pawn shop's work in submitting serial numbers that got the
items found. If the pawn shop gets prosecuted for turning in paperwork, they
will turn in less paperwork.

~~~
kristofferR
Why doesn't it work in the other direction - where the pawn shops check the
serial number in a police database of stolen items before they purchase it,
and then contact the police silently if it turns out to be stolen?

------
hyperliner
This is the one reason I am considering a Dropcam Pro.

~~~
Someone1234
So instead of paying $225 to a pawn shop you can pay $225 for the Dropcam
Pro..? Dropcams are overpriced, but no camera would have stopped this, they
already caught the thief, so they didn't need additional evidence.

If you think you'll see the video and rush home before the thieves leave then
you misunderstand just how little time your average robbery takes. 15-20
minutes at most, most much less (10 or less minutes). Get in, grab valuables,
and get out. They just presume silent alarm or neighbour spotted them, and act
accordingly.

------
Theodores
Last month I had my laptop stolen for it to be retrieved from a bin in a
neighbouring council estate, screen, keyboard and case wrecked.

Because it had been retrieved (which was good in that I got my data back) it
was not 'stolen', merely 'criminal damage'. Although a police matter rather
than something I have to pursue with 'civil action' of my own, a lot of hoops
have to be gone through before things happen.

So the original box - Dell 'high end' from 2 years ago cost £800. Trying to
work out what was wrong with it and then running around town + the internet to
get a repair quote has taken a good day of my time. This was quite an effort
with a lot of repair shops just not able to give a quote just like that.
Either they want £50 for just the quote or they don't want to bother with it
as it is too much hassle - fair enough. Eventually - thank my lucky stars - I
get a quote for £417 from some small repair shop, this was just the ticket I
needed to be able to help the police proceed with some action.

The thief have allegedly had their 'bail hearing' and I am none the wiser as
to what happened. Even if they were going to pay the £417 the quote came to I
doubt that I would want it fixed given the hassle involved in that. A new
replacement machine is what I would like, not something that has the scars of
quite a traumatic incident. Even though prices go down it still costs ~£800 to
get a similar PC (i7, HD screen, backlit keyboard, 8Gb RAM, aluminium case). A
£400 'High Street' machine might be pretty good but I doubt I will get the
magic 'i7' badge.

So the costs - I needed the machine for out of hours support so other
arrangements had to be made for that. I spent quite a lot of time with the
police at the time of the incident and following things up running around to
repair shops - surprisingly draining. Plus the story is not over yet, by the
time I am done it could be a week's worth of effort to get the thing back, and
that is assuming that the thief just comes up with the money.

How do I value my time? If I look at lowest of the low contractor rate as a
starting point and imagine how much a few days work for a client could be then
my time spent running around for some notional £417 could be more profitable.
Plus I would achieve something.

Oddly though, even though I am 'turn the other cheek', in this case I am keen
that the thief has the criminal record and the difficulty of getting £££
together. The fact that £417 does not buy me a replacement 'i7' machine (with
backlit keyboard, HD screen and 8Gb RAM) is in some ways a detail.

Although I have had the help of the police I am surprised at how things work
out - thief released under caution and some assumption that I don't deserve my
machine simply replaced - 'like for like' and not patched up together again.
Also this burden of running around town to get quotes for a repair, isn't my
time valuable?

------
brotoss
Has a 2013 MBA, but can't afford a $225 expense?? Mac users are hilarious

------
junto
The author seems completely annoyed at the fact that he had to pay to get his
treasured top-of-the-range laptop back from the pawnbrokers (who were also out
of pocket otherwise).

In my opinion the net outcome is extremely positive. He might have never got
it back and then he'd be forced to buy a new one (albeit with insurance
money), but he would have lost all his files assuming he has no backups. Even
if he had backups, restoring his laptop back to its exact previous state isn't
easy for most people.

I'd be completely stoked if my stolen laptop turned up and I just had to pay
the pawnbroker for what he was out of pocket for.

The author is a "glass half empty" kind of guy.

~~~
onion2k
Anyone who buys something from someone else, but _especially_ a professional
like a pawnbroker, has a duty to make sure the goods they're buying aren't
stolen. Failing to do that is a crime in many countries ("handling stolen
goods" in UK parlance). The very least the pawnbroker should pay is the cost
of whatever they're out of pocket for, but really they ought to be facing
criminal charges. People being willing to profit from stolen goods is what
keeps people stealing. If no one was willing to buy something that had been
stolen then people would stop taking things (or at most they'd steal what they
need themselves).

Perpetuating criminality is _in no way_ a good thing.

~~~
icebraining
_Anyone who buys something from someone else, but especially a professional
like a pawnbroker, has a duty to make sure the goods they 're buying aren't
stolen._

Isn't that what the pawnshop did, by submitting the serial numbers to the
cops?

 _The very least the pawnbroker should pay is the cost of whatever they 're
out of pocket for_

And they would've, if she had followed the legal procedure, she just didn't
want to wait.

~~~
emcrazyone
"Isn't that what the pawnshop did, by submitting the serial numbers to the
cops?"

Yes, after they shelled out $225 to a thief.

~~~
icebraining
What do you expect them to do?

