Why hide the serial number ?

[Alan Edward Klein]

and was your stuff cameras and lenses? Or something else? Had you filed a police report all those many years ago? And when you filed the police report, did you have to show evidence that you actually were the owner of the stuff in question (I'm specifically thinking of original receipts with dates and serial numbers etc).

My point is that the police aren't going to just come to my house and collect up my belongings based upon some photo that I posted of my belongings on the internet. There's much more involved - prior police reports, evidence of an actual crime, maybe even an insurance claim? and the perpetrator of this imagined easy scam / fraud better have a pretty good idea about when I bought the stuff and hope that I don't have proof that of that.

EDIT: (added later) and after some thought I see your point too. I think what you're saying is that If I bought a 50 year old lens 5 years ago and advertise it for sale today, with photos showing the serial number and that lens was reported stolen 20 years ago, and the person from whom it was stolens sees my photos and realizes that it is the same lens, then all he has to do is report this to the police and...somehow the police come knocking on my door (possibly in another state though? How would that work?) and re-posses the lens that was reported stolen 20 years ago...yes?

Police do not repossess property. A court order has to be issued meaning there was a trial. Then the owner has to hire a sheriff (in NY, the process might be a little different in CA). The sheriff then repossesses the object or usually in a lawsuit, the court award is the value in dollars. Then the sheriff is used to make a claim against the loser's bank account or garnishee of his wages. I suppose he could use small claims court to sue you.

But the point is, the police can't make an independent judgment and then seize property. The claimant would have to sue you and use the legal system to prove his ownership.

 

[Wayne]

and was your stuff cameras and lenses? Or something else? Had you filed a police report all those many years ago? And when you filed the police report, did you have to show evidence that you actually were the owner of the stuff in question (I'm specifically thinking of original receipts with dates and serial numbers etc).

My point is that the police aren't going to just come to my house and collect up my belongings based upon some photo that I posted of my belongings on the internet. There's much more involved - prior police reports, evidence of an actual crime, maybe even an insurance claim? and the perpetrator of this imagined easy scam / fraud better have a pretty good idea about when I bought the stuff and hope that I don't have proof that of that.

EDIT: (added later) and after some thought I see your point too. I think what you're saying is that If I bought a 50 year old lens 5 years ago and advertise it for sale today, with photos showing the serial number and that lens was reported stolen 20 years ago, and the person from whom it was stolens sees my photos and realizes that it is the same lens, then all he has to do is report this to the police and...somehow the police come knocking on my door (possibly in another state though? How would that work?) and re-posses the lens that was reported stolen 20 years ago...yes?

Now you're getting warm, except the police probably won't help you. They wouldn't help me. But mine was not camera equipment. My comment was perhaps misleading and off topic as it was really just about the general act of getting stolen items back without needing "prosecution" and had little to do with cameras or photos of serial numbers in ads.

 

[AgX]

Again, this is an international forum and the legal situation may vary.

 

[Wayne]

Police do not repossess property. A court order has to be issued meaning there was a trial. Then the owner has to hire a sheriff (in NY, the process might be a little different in CA). The sheriff then repossesses the object or usually in a lawsuit, the court award is the value in dollars. Then the sheriff is used to make a claim against the loser's bank account or garnishee of his wages. I suppose he could use small claims court to sue you.

But the point is, the police can't make an independent judgment and then seize property. The claimant would have to sue you and use the legal system to prove his ownership.

My stolen property was a boat. You're right, the police wouldn't repossess it but law enforcement from the state agency that regulates watercraft did and they gave it back. If they hadn't, I would had to "steal" it back without getting caught, possibly a dicey proposition. Not sure how that would have worked out. What could they say if I pulled up in broad daylight and drove off with it, if I had proof of purchase and proof it had been stolen? I'm glad I didn't have to find out.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

My stolen property was a boat. You're right, the police wouldn't repossess it but law enforcement from the state agency that regulates watercraft did and they gave it back. If they hadn't, I would had to "steal" it back without getting caught, possibly a dicey proposition. Not sure how that would have worked out. What could they say if I pulled up in broad daylight and drove off with it, if I had proof of purchase and proof it had been stolen? I'm glad I didn't have to find out.

That's an interesting point, Wayne. So how did the agency do that? I suppose it raises a question about my point about a trial being required.

Let's say the police break up a stolen property ring that include camera equipment, jewelry, TV's, computers, etc. The property is returned to their lawful owners while the criminals get arrested and tried for the crime. There's no lawsuit. How is the return of property done legally? Is there a judge that decides this can be done. What is the process? Who decides who owns what? Who is authorized to release the property?

 

[AgX]

Alan you are mixing up two different scenarios:
-) police investigating a crime (theft, robbery) and the resulting goods
-) the attempt of getting back ones own property from someone else, who got it, bought it, without a crime directly involved

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Alan you are mixing up two different scenarios:
-) police investigating a crime (theft, robbery) and the resulting goods
-) the attempt of getting back ones own property from someone else, who got it, bought it, without a crime directly involved

It has nothing to do whether its a crime or civil action. In the USA, police cannot determine on a person's claim to them that certain property is theirs so the police return it at their own decision. You have to file a civil lawsuit in court and after a trial, if their claim is proved, then the court issues a judgment that the property has to be returned or some other payment has to be made. Cops are not judges.

For example, you have a receipt with a serial number that shows you bought a lens. You go to the police and claim the John Smith has your lens and you want it back. The cops cannot stop the other guy on the street and take the lens from him and give it to you. You have to file a claim in small claims court or raise it to a higher level. He might claim that he bought the lens and there would be no way for a cop, in any case, to determine who is right or who the lens legally belongs to. That's what courts and judges do.

What I'm not sure of is in the case of let's say a stolen car. The cops stop the thief, arrest him, and return the car to the legal owner as shown on the car's registration and license. I don't think a judge has to be involved. But in this case, the law itself defines the owner's rights by the actual registration in his name. Of course, there's no registration with the State government for other things like lenses, jewelry, etc. Maybe a lawyer here could explain this part better.

 

[AgX]

What I wanted to say is that if no crime is directly involved the police is out of the game. And this is likely the case in most legal systems.

 

[MattKing]

In Canada, if the police have reasonable grounds to believe and do believe that the items are stolen property and the holder is either the thief or knows that they are stolen property than they have grounds to both legally seize the property and to charge the holder with one or both of those indictable offences.
The items can be seized legally. Whether they are released to someone else depends on the circumstances. If the police are satisfied, based on evidence, that you are the rightful owner, they have the power to release them to you, once they are finished with them. That may await completion of a trial.
If they release the property negligently, they can be sued.
If they do so fraudulently, they can be charged.
If they are unsure who should get the property - and they are quite careful about this, then there is jurisdiction in the court and procedure for determining the ownership.

 

[Steve Goldstein]

Another reason to hide the serial number is greed.

Suppose Elroy snags a highly desireable Leicablad lens from an eBay seller who doesn’t know what he has and thus listed it at an absurdly low BIN price. (Such listings are less common than they used to be IME but that’s besides the point). Now he wants to quickly flip the item here on Photrio before it vanishes from eBay (90 days). An astute potential buyer could discover that Elroy paid bottom dollar for the lens and be unwilling to pay him top dollar.

Another side of this is that Elroy might suspect the item is stolen based on the ridiculous BIN price. He might hide the serial number as a way of “protecting” his “investment”.

But Elroy could be an honest, upstanding, and knowledgeable guy who knows that there’s only one version of that Leicablad lens that was made for only a year, and that there’s no information to he gained from the serial number.

Or maybe he was in a hurry when taking the photos and didn’t notice that he’d failed to show the number.

So there could be many reasons.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Another reason to hide the serial number is greed.

Suppose Elroy snags a highly desireable Leicablad lens from an eBay seller who doesn’t know what he has and thus listed it at an absurdly low BIN price. (Such listings are less common than they used to be IME but that’s besides the point). Now he wants to quickly flip the item here on Photrio before it vanishes from eBay (90 days). An astute potential buyer could discover that Elroy paid bottom dollar for the lens and be unwilling to pay him top dollar.

Another side of this is that Elroy might suspect the item is stolen based on the ridiculous BIN price. He might hide the serial number as a way of “protecting” his “investment”.

But Elroy could be an honest, upstanding, and knowledgeable guy who knows that there’s only one version of that Leicablad lens that was made for only a year, and that there’s no information to he gained from the serial number.

Or maybe he was in a hurry when taking the photos and didn’t notice that he’d failed to show the number.

So there could be many reasons.

But all the advantages or greed, so-called, for Elroy the buyer, is of no interest to the seller who places the ad. It's to the seller's advantage to list the serial number to assure the buyer the lens ad and the pictures of it are on the up and up. . That will help his selling it quicker because it gives confidence to the buyer a switch won;;t be made. He'll be able to check the number when he gets the lens and match it against the ad's pictures.

 

[AgX]

Another side of this is that Elroy might suspect the item is stolen based on the ridiculous BIN price. He might hide the serial number as a way of “protecting” his “investment”.

See my post above on this aspect.