Massive theft at Dallas card show, Nearly 2 Million Dollars worth of cards stolen

[gregndodgers]

If FBI is involved, and I know for a fact that they are, the federal theft statutes as well as conspiracy are implicated.

Additionally, for the FBI to be involved, there must be evidence that the stolen cards or thieves crossed state lines to commit the crime or a telephone was used.

For conspiracy, which is clearly implicated here because more than one person participated in the theft, the SOL begins to run after commission of the last overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. Because conspiracies are continuing in nature, it may be decades before the SOL runs out.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by gregndodgers

If FBI is involved, and I know for a fact that they are, the federal theft statutes as well as conspiracy are implicated.

Additionally, for the FBI to be involved, there must be evidence that the stolen cards or thieves crossed state lines to commit the crime or a telephone was used.

For conspiracy, which is clearly implicated here because more than one person participated in the theft, the SOL begins to run after commission of the last overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. Because conspiracies are continuing in nature, it may be decades before the SOL runs out.

What does the SOL accomplish for the thieves? Can someone steal something, sit quietly on it until the Statue of Limitations runs out, then sell the stolen goods with impunity?

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Mark17

What does the SOL accomplish for the thieves? Can someone steal something, sit quietly on it until the Statue of Limitations runs out, then sell the stolen goods with impunity?

Depends.

Criminal and civil are two different things.

Most states have exceptions to civil limitations periods that extend the time to recover stolen items. Usually, these give the victim time after an article is discovered or should have been discovered if the victim was paying attention. Some items, like looted art from WWII, have been subjected to new limitations periods based on special legislation. While a thief cannot acquire good title, the victim may lose the ability to retrieve the item if enough time has passed, which amounts to the same thing as good title. I am certain that most of us have items in our collections that were stolen at one time or another, even if it was a kid lifting a card from his brother's collection while the brother was in the army.

Every state has a different set of rules and precedents covering this issue, so no blanket rule can be stated. I know Cali law but jacksquat about Texas law, so any Texans out there to further elaborate?

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Mark17

What does the SOL accomplish for the thieves? Can someone steal something, sit quietly on it until the Statue of Limitations runs out, then sell the stolen goods with impunity?

I'm wading into the danger zone as an accountant attempting to speak to legal issues, but I think the idea is that the SOL eliminates the possibility of being charged with the crime, and the potential of jail time. Obviously it's a long ways from being home free and the ability to just act with impunity, but at least that one source of potential jeopardy is lifted once the SOL has run.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by raulus

I'm wading into the danger zone as an accountant attempting to speak to legal issues, but I think the idea is that the SOL eliminates the possibility of being charged with the crime, and the potential of jail time. Obviously it's a long ways from being home free and the ability to just act with impunity, but at least that one source of potential jeopardy is lifted once the SOL has run.

My thought has been that SOLs are legislatively created and, therefore, risk being legislatively changed. So it would be hard to be supremely comfortable doing anything untoward if you’re relying on a SOL as your only defense. That’s a little different than if you’re been tried and acquitted and then do something untoward because at that point you’d be relying on a constitutional defense of double jeopardy, not just a legislative invention of a SOL.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Carter08

My thought has been that SOLs are legislatively created and, therefore, risk being legislatively changed. So it would be hard to be supremely comfortable doing anything untoward if you’re relying on a SOL as your only defense. That’s a little different than if you’re been tried and acquitted and then do something untoward because at that point you’d be relying on a constitutional defense of double jeopardy, not just a legislative invention of a SOL.

Au contraire.
The U.S. Supreme Court opined in Stogner v. California in 2003 that a change of a statute of limitations cannot be retroactively applied to crimes which were committed prior to the law’s change. The Court held that retroactive application would violate the constitutional ban on ex post facto laws.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Au contraire.
The U.S. Supreme Court opined in Stogner v. California in 2003 that a change of a statute of limitations cannot be retroactively applied to crimes which were committed prior to the law’s change. The Court held that retroactive application would violate the constitutional ban on ex post facto laws.

And how is Roe v Wade doing these days, professor?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Carter08

And how is Roe v Wade doing these days, professor?

I'm not engaging with you on this. The Spahn thread where five times you put words in my mouth critical of Spahn was painful enough. I have no doubt, though, that many criminals whose offenses are nearing or past the statute of limitations are very worried. Just admit you had no idea what the law actually was and move on.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

And how is Roe v Wade doing these days, professor?

The court overturning rulings based on things that are not actually in the Constitution at all has nothing to do with a claim the court is or will overturn things that are in the Constitution, which this court has not been doing. Ex post facto is Article 1, Section 9, clause 3.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Carter08

And how is Roe v Wade doing these days, professor?

Polical.commentary?

Shame shame