12-07-09 06:58 PM
38 12
tools
  1. cookieronster's Avatar
    except now you are knowingly selling stolen goods.. thats illegal in itself. if the person you sell to on ebay decides to file a complaint on you, even if you said it was "locked", charges could be brought on you. doesnt seem very logical to me.. so, i think the best advice in this thread was mine.. post #2.
    As long as it is described as such, i do not see why a complaint will be filed.
    ie. "Selling BLACKBERRY TOUR, with a bad esn, but unlocked for GSM" and further describe his own personal situation and how it was stolen when he bought it but it works for GSM carriers. i mean it would be a good way for gsm users to get a phone that they want a little bit cheaper. if that buyer were to file a complaint about someone selling stolen goods and they look up the item number and see plainly that the phone has a lost/stolen esn, they would tell the buyer that he did not read the description. they would not take the buyer's side whatsoever. but i mean if you're that scared stick to craigslist--and definitely stick with my advice.
    12-04-09 09:47 PM
  2. cookieronster's Avatar
    and just so you know, Ebay and paypal have an altogether different and unique set of rules directed toward cell phone sales. one of which being that Paypal serves as an escrow service where the money is only released to the seller after the buyer has received the phone and inspected it to their liking or 21 days after the sale.
    Last edited by cookieronster; 12-04-09 at 09:53 PM.
    12-04-09 09:50 PM
  3. ceb's Avatar
    As long as it is described as such, i do not see why a complaint will be filed.
    ie. "Selling BLACKBERRY TOUR, with a bad esn, but unlocked for GSM" and further describe his own personal situation and how it was stolen when he bought it but it works for GSM carriers. i mean it would be a good way for gsm users to get a phone that they want a little bit cheaper. if that buyer were to file a complaint about someone selling stolen goods and they look up the item number and see plainly that the phone has a lost/stolen esn, they would tell the buyer that he did not read the description. they would not take the buyer's side whatsoever. but i mean if you're that scared stick to craigslist--and definitely stick with my advice.
    Sorry, but if the OP said it was stolen (and he did) then if he resells it he is guilty of stolen property - regardless of his description.

    In fact, since he is now in possession of stolen property, his ONLY option is to file a police report.
    12-04-09 10:40 PM
  4. cookieronster's Avatar
    Sorry, but if the OP said it was stolen (and he did) then if he resells it he is guilty of stolen property - regardless of his description.

    In fact, since he is now in possession of stolen property, his ONLY option is to file a police report.
    ...okay take everyone else's advice and waste the police's time and yours.
    12-04-09 10:53 PM
  5. lorrix's Avatar
    Well, some may think reporting this to the police is a waste of time, but not reporting it and doing everything you can to make sure you go about things in the appropriate manner is probably the safer route to be.

    I'd rather waste my time or a police officer's time by filling out a report than have charges pressed against me.

    I mean, if I'm going to be arrested, it's going to be for something MUCH more exciting than selling a cell phone.
    12-04-09 11:06 PM
  6. SofaKingKev's Avatar
    The OP called VZ and they said it was a bad/stolen ESN. It doesn't make it legal to sell if you state that its stolen in the description. That makes no sense..

    -"but officer, you can't take me to jail!! I told the buyer its stolen!"

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    12-05-09 12:40 AM
  7. Xquisite30's Avatar
    The OP called VZ and they said it was a bad/stolen ESN. It doesn't make it legal to sell if you state that its stolen in the description. That makes no sense..

    -"but officer, you can't take me to jail!! I told the buyer its stolen!"

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    haha thats good stuff sofaking..but yea u should take cookieronster's advice and sell stolen goods..just say "it fell off the back of a truck" hah
    12-05-09 02:33 AM
  8. michigan0782's Avatar
    Some states have strict liability crimes. YOu may have not known it was stolen or intended to buy stolen goods but some states will still hold you responsible for buying and possessing stolen goods. Its called strict liability. Just be aware of it
    12-05-09 05:23 AM
  9. Fuzzballz's Avatar
    Some states have strict liability crimes. YOu may have not known it was stolen or intended to buy stolen goods but some states will still hold you responsible for buying and possessing stolen goods. Its called strict liability. Just be aware of it
    Well, that's not exactly true. All states do have "strict liability" offenses, but they are for low-level crimes and infractions. This is because they tend to violate due process since the prosecution does not have to show any sort of intent or "mens rea." Most courts have found 'intent' to be a necessary ingredient in a serious crime.

    However, there's something called "constructive knowledge" whereby a reasonable person SHOULD know that what they're doing is unlawful. For example, if someone pays you $1000 to drive a car across the border and tells you not to look in the trunk, and you're caught and they find 40 kilos of cocaine in the trunk, they'll argue that you "should have known" that something was fishy.
    12-05-09 05:41 AM
  10. i7guy's Avatar
    Well, that's not exactly true. All states do have "strict liability" offenses, but they are for low-level crimes and infractions. This is because they tend to violate due process since the prosecution does not have to show any sort of intent or "mens rea." Most courts have found 'intent' to be a necessary ingredient in a serious crime.

    However, there's something called "constructive knowledge" whereby a reasonable person SHOULD know that what they're doing is unlawful. For example, if someone pays you $1000 to drive a car across the border and tells you not to look in the trunk, and you're caught and they find 40 kilos of cocaine in the trunk, they'll argue that you "should have known" that something was fishy.
    The out is the "reasonable person" clause.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    12-05-09 09:49 AM
  11. bakarus's Avatar
    lol, what are the police even going to do? beat him up? i don't know about you but if i were a police officer i probably would not be getting paid enough to look through every little craigslist SCAM.

    i offered him the only logical advice from this entire thread, unlock the phone and sell it to a GSM user. lesson learned, the police aren't going to do anything. yeah right...
    A crime is a crime, whether it be small or large, if you file a police report, they have to respond. It may not be their first priority, but you have to do everything to protect yourself from deceitful people like that. Your advice is the most logical, but it doesn't solve anything. Dirtbags are still going to continue to scam people, but at least by posting whatever we can educate others that had the same thing happen to them.

    To the OP, unfortunately this has happened to many people already, and next time do due diligence, its the only way to protect yourself. I find that craigslist is even more dangerous than ebay, because if you pay with cash, its really hard to follow that trail. Ebay at least has electronic trails with paypal. What you should have honestly done was swap it at the verizon store. That way you can acknowledge to them that the seller is relinquishing his ownership of the phone to you. If he/she says that they don't have time, then that is a bunch of bull. If they really intended to make a sale, then they wouldn't mind going.
    12-05-09 10:23 AM
  12. michigan0782's Avatar
    I agree except for one part. There are some instances where strict liability occurs for recieving or buying stolen items. Now just because an individual is charged does not mean they are automatically guilty. The burden of proof falls on the defendent to prove the they had no knowledge the item they bought was stolen. It all depends on the situation. If you buy an ipod from some guy selling it out of his car and then try and claim you didnt know it was stolen. Then the strict liability clause is going to bite you because a reasonable person in that situation would most likey have assumed it was stolen. So in that case the objective reasonalbeness and the strict laibility is what gets the defendent in trouble.

    *im not trying to "argue" or show whos smarter...law and the elements involved can tend to get very complicated. I do not claim to be an expert. Theres a lot smarter people out there than i am. Just relaying what i know and have learned through schooling..but law can get very complicated. Especially,when different states have different elements, code law vs criminal, etc. My intention is to merly make sure people arent confused by what they read and take it for "gold"**
    12-05-09 10:57 AM
  13. sjunkie#AC's Avatar
    i wouldn't be surprised if that was my stolen tour... those f'ing bastards....
    12-07-09 06:58 PM
38 12
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD