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

[LEHR]

Originally Posted by Yoda

Makes perfect sense to me. I knew the Bulgarians were somehow involved.

They always are. Crafty ass Bulgarians.

[jingram058]

The more time goes by the weirder it gets, the theft and the comments here. The Bulgarian thing is a dead horse. I'm starting to think the cards are long gone.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Smaller crime ring?

They looked pretty tall to me.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Perhaps because there is nothing at all funny about this theft, the attempts at humor in this thread are uniformly falling flat.

[babraham]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

They looked pretty tall to me.

[skelly]

Was this dealer planning on vending at the National? If so, do you just bring your lesser / other inventory, or do you scrap the event? Did he own all the cards that were taken? Is it possible some were owned by other people and he was selling them on consignment?

[CardPadre]

Originally Posted by skelly

Was this dealer planning on vending at the National? If so, do you just bring your lesser / other inventory, or do you scrap the event? Did he own all the cards that were taken? Is it possible some were owned by other people and he was selling them on consignment?

Saw a post yesterday that he will still be at the National. Probably some lesser inventory, not everything of his was taken. Don’t know for sure about consignments, but that’s not the vibe I get from his operation, so don’t think so.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Perhaps because there is nothing at all funny about this theft, the attempts at humor in this thread are uniformly falling flat.

Might be going a little too far. Social threads going into comedic territory is not unusual, human condition and all that.

[Snowman]

Yes, he had several big cards on consignment in the lot that was stolen.

[Exhibitman]

It's called "gallows humor", Peter. You might not like it but others apparently do.

So...is the dead horse Bulgarian.

[Yoda]

I am the one that first referenced the Bulgarians. I kinda pulled it out of the air to support an earlier post that the stolen cards could very well be out of the country. There is a card connection to Bulgaria and the country is known for its organized crime. In no way was I trying to make light of Ash's misfortune, which grows more worrisome daily with no arrests and little information from the authorities. When I was a retail dealer, I had valuable inventory stolen and it is a punch to the gut like a left hook from Joe Fraser. The Bulgarian thread took on a life its own, and if it caused offense, I apologize.

[Republicaninmass]

Hmmmm, does Insurance cover consignments if not specified?

Yikes

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Hmmmm, does Insurance cover consignments if not specified?

Yikes

I would sure hope it's in his policy. It may be standard?

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

If he had consignments he needs contracts for insurance purposes. At least that's how our policy works.

[etsmith]

Usually a heist like this is done by people who already have a buyer or buyers for the merchandise. Also it's completely possible if it gets too hot that they can try to sell it back to the insurance company.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by etsmith

Usually a heist like this is done by people who already have a buyer or buyers for the merchandise. Also it's completely possible if it gets too hot that they can try to sell it back to the insurance company.

I give up. What does this mean?

[parkplace33]

Its been over 2 weeks. I am praying for the best.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

If he had consignments he needs contracts for insurance purposes. At least that's how our policy works.

Thanks Scott, I'd assume with people.mailing stuff out contracts are written for auctions. But someone just saying "try to sell my cards at the shows" may not be as detailed. Then you have to deal with insurance saying the contracts were not signed contemporaneously with the acceptance of the consignments. Absolutely brutal

[Yoda]

Ash, may well have, and I certainly hope he does, something called a Bailee's Liability policy which insures the property while he is in possession of any consignor's property. Or the consignor could have a property policy which covers these crown jewels when they are off the property and in possession/control of another party.
As the days pass and there is no word from the authorities, my dread grows.

[Peter_Spaeth]

This happened on what, July 5? While of course it's possible the authorities have no leads, neither does the fact that they haven't announced a resolution in two weeks and change mean they don't have active leads. The expectations of instant gratification expressed here were not realistic for a criminal investigation. Not like a guy who hot wires a car and they catch him the next day. This isn't a matter of with each passing day it's more likely they're home free, and anyhow the authorities obviously aren't going to update the public every time they have information and if they're talking to Ashish they've probably told him to keep quiet as they did JP.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

This happened on what, July 5? While of course it's possible the authorities have no leads, neither does the fact that they haven't announced a resolution in two weeks and change mean they don't have active leads. The expectations of instant gratification expressed here were not realistic for a criminal investigation. Not like a guy who hot wires a car and they catch him the next day. This isn't a matter of with each passing day it's more likely they're home free, and anyhow the authorities obviously aren't going to update the public every time they have information and if they're talking to Ashish they've probably told him to keep quiet as they did JP.

But Peter, in Law & Order, they not only catch the crook but finish the trial in an hour.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jayshum

But Peter, in Law & Order, they not only catch the crook but finish the trial in an hour.

People expect instant gratification now. I remember when Blowout first posted some trimmed cards, people expected PWCC would be shut down within a week. Even the ML investigation took some time, and the thief there seemed to be an amateur.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

This happened on what, July 5? While of course it's possible the authorities have no leads, neither does the fact that they haven't announced a resolution in two weeks and change mean they don't have active leads. The expectations of instant gratification expressed here were not realistic for a criminal investigation. Not like a guy who hot wires a car and they catch him the next day. This isn't a matter of with each passing day it's more likely they're home free, and anyhow the authorities obviously aren't going to update the public every time they have information and if they're talking to Ashish they've probably told him to keep quiet as they did JP.

Plus and as I am sure you and others here know, law enforcement may already have suspects well in range and are building/strengthening their case, including whether others were involved in coordination or post-theft activity. Given double jeopardy and speedy trial concerns, along with there being no threat of danger to the general public, it seems unlikely they are going to arrest or charge quickly just for its own sake. I suppose the possibility of suspects fleeing the country could change the calculus, but I am willing to give law enforcement the benefit of the doubt on how this is being handled.

[Jewish-collector]

If we don't hear that the authorities caught them, when do we realize those thieves got away with it ? 3 more weeks ? 6 months ? 1 year ? 5 Years ? 10 years ?

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Jewish-collector

If we don't hear that the authorities caught them, when do we realize those thieves got away with it ? 3 more weeks ? 6 months ? 1 year ? 5 Years ? 10 years ?

Unless there’s an exception that I’m missing, it looks like the statute of limitations for theft runs out at 5 years in the great state of TX.

I suppose we can debate at what point the trail goes cold and law enforcement puts it into the unsolved case file, to wait for something to happen on its own, like one of the perps turning on the rest of the gang. I would randomly guess that could theoretically happen within a few months if there’s zero traction and no leads.

[HercDriver]

I haven't chimed in yet, and I rarely do, but what if they have ID'd the guy(s) and are waiting for them to try to sell, to double down on them with mail fraud or something. I don't know...I don't watch Law and Order, just the Cubs games on MLB Network. I've seen some pretty grainy videos on Yahoo News that have led to arrests, worse than these. Yes, Yahoo News. I hate all the news networks anymore, so I just take what pops up with my email, and get suckered in on the click bait. But the guys who push people into the train tracks on the subway ion NYC are way grainier than these guys. Just my random musings as I sip a Michjter's Rye and watch the frustrating Cubbies.

Cheers,
Geno

[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.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

I am currently litigating several cases where SOLs have been removed or their dates have been expanded. Sorry.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Carter08

I am currently litigating several cases where SOLs have been removed or their dates have been expanded. Sorry.

Prospectively though, no?

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

To paraphrase you, what did I say that was wrong?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

I am currently litigating several cases where SOLs have been removed or their dates have been expanded. Sorry.

It's hard to follow your claim on a logical level. Your original claim seemed to be that the Court overturning Roe because that issue is not in the Constitution signals that the Court may overturn things that are actually in the Cosntitution. Now it is that the ex post facto prohibition of the Constitution has been overturned because you have several active cases about it right now? I'd love to see the case where the Supreme Court overturned Article 1 Section 9 Clause 3! That would be news to quite a number of people. If you just didn't know about it, you are welcome to use it for your clients.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Carter08

To paraphrase you, what did I say that was wrong?

Your Roe v. Wade comment implied there was some significant possibility the case forbidding retroactive application of changes to the statute of limitations would be overturned, and therefore your original thought about criminals not being able to rely on an SOL was valid.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Carter08

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

Polical.commentary?

Shame shame

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Prospectively though, no?

100 percent not prospectively. It’s in the civil context is the wiggle room for you but I don’t see it as a stretch that the same could happen in the criminal context. That’s why I said I would not feel supremely comfortable if the SOL is the only thing I think gives an escape.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Carter08

100 percent not prospectively. It’s in the civil context is the wiggle room for you but I don’t see it as a stretch that the same could happen in the criminal context. That’s why I said I would not feel supremely comfortable if the SOL is the only thing I think gives an escape.

Civil is completely different as you know. How many Supreme Court cases have EVER been reversed by the Supreme Court, anyhow? Jupiter could collide with Mars too, I can't rule that out either.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Civil is completely different as you know. How many Supreme Court cases have EVER been reversed by the Supreme Court, anyhow? Jupiter could collide with Mars too, I can't rule that out.

The constitution does not say criminal. You know that. If courts allow civil SOLs to be undone is it a great stretch that the same could never happen in the criminal context. Again, if I had committed a crime (have not to my knowledge) I would not go about my days care free if the SOL was the only thing I was relying on.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Polical.commentary?

Shame shame

No. Commentary that what is once thought of as settled law can change very quickly. Try to keep up.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Carter08

The constitution does not say criminal. You know that. If courts allow civil SOLs to be undone is it a great stretch that the same could never happen in the criminal context. Again, if I had committed a crime (have not to my knowledge) I would not go about my days care free if the SOL was the only thing I was relying on.

Well, I would grant you it is not impossible, but it seems to me highly highly unlikely. If I had committed some common crime like theft and I was beyond the SOL I would probably have many other things to worry about than the possibility (1) the relevant jurisdiction would extend or eliminate the SOL and (2) the Supreme Court would overturn Stogner.

[HercDriver]

The old argument surfaces again...a solid pitcher like Preacher Roe, or an incredible hitter in Boggs. I guess it's just who you surround them with...

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Well, I would grant you it is not impossible, but it seems to me highly highly unlikely. If I had committed some common crime like theft and I was beyond the SOL I would probably have many other things to worry about than the possibility (1) the relevant jurisdiction would extend or eliminate the SOL and (2) the Supreme Court would overturn Stogner.

We can agree on this.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Carter08

We can agree on this.

OK good.

[davidan]

I hope they catch these rat bastards