7 ms·

Yeah, that part confused me to. I'm pretty sure that if I bought a stolen xbox from some guy on a street corner and the Police find me with it, they'd not throw

Yeah, that part confused me to. I'm pretty sure that if I bought a stolen xbox from some guy on a street corner and the Police find me with it, they'd not throw up their hands and say "oh well, I guess you own it now, on your way". I assume there is a specific legal quirk with property ownership.

dtparr 5y ago
I believe the 'quirk' here is that the fraud was able to get property ownership updated with the Land Registry, so the new owner is the official owner of record.
- dgb23 5y ago
  So the Land Registry is at fault? Good luck...
- thereddaikon 5y ago
  Sounds to me like in the UK you cant truly own land if the government can just decide it belongs to someone else.
  - codyb 5y ago
    Pretty much true everywhere. It’s not like you can take anything with you when you’re dead, owning materials is really just a societal construct no matter which way you slice it.
    - H8crilA 5y ago
      Possession is a physical/real property of the universe. Ownership is a legal abstraction/construct.
      - lazide 5y ago
        Being allowed to possess something (instead of being drug off kicking and screaming by the cops) is also a societal/legal construct.
        necovek 5y ago
        It is a societal/legal construct brough up from the historical experience (eg. if a caveman built himself a hammer, they possessed it as long as they took good care of it). We've redefined what "taking good care of something" means for things you possess, and we made elaborate social/legal constructs to clearly define boundaries of possession. But this is present even in the animal world, even when it comes to "property" (wolfs mark their territory, so do lions, bees go back to their own hives, etc).
      - enord 5y ago
        >Possession is a physical/real property of the universe This assertion immediately falls apart on consideration IMO. Even in simple, controlled circumstances like football, the meaning of "possession" is subject to mutual agreement (i.e. "rules"). You could take some particular definition of "possession" as "natural" or otherwise axiomatic. This is not unheard of, but I think it's a trick of misdirection to place it in the domain of the "physical/real" when it is plainly a political matter.
    - mensetmanusman 5y ago
      Interesting point, I wonder if we will ever have a future where cryogenic freezing works and allows people to own land after they are temporarily dead.
  - ska 5y ago
    > cant truly own land if the government can just This is mostly how private property works in practice, everywhere.
    - aqsalose 5y ago
      In civilized countries, it requires a specific decree or order by some government body, possibly after appeals. Not just random clerk writing a line in a book when random stranger comes and tells they own a piece of land and are going to sell it.
      - blitzar 5y ago
        > it requires a specific decree or order by some government body That person is a random clerk > possibly after appeals I can 100% gaurantee that this case goes to court (if it is not settled to the now previous owners satisfaction). I also suspect that the original owner will come out on top, by likely more than the 150k that their 'house' was worth.
        aqsalose 5y ago
        Only thing I can think of is eminent domain. Here it using it requires either a specific decree by the national government (as in, the prime minister), zoning plan approved by the elected municipal government, or in some limited cases, apparently involving electric power lines, an agency. The owner is to be informed of the proceedings before they take effect. The random clerk does not get to do write off your property belonging to someone else, unless your elected representative had a change voice an opinion in a proceedings where a clear public decision by the elected representatives to specifically take away someone's property was made.
  - _jal 5y ago
    > Sounds to me like in the UK you cant truly own land Can you name a country that behaves differently?
  - lazide 5y ago
    Possession is 9/10ths of the law, and the gov’t likes to claim possession of all real property in it’s borders in some way or another
  - jopsen 5y ago
    Yeah, you don't truly own land, you pay property taxes, etc. It's more like you lease the land :)
kybernetyk 5y ago
The quirk is that in the UK you’re not a free man but only a subject and in the end the crown owns everything and now fuck off, filthy peasant, before the king sends his men.
- thesuitonym 5y ago
  Is this really different than any other country? Any government (at least in uncontested territories) can come in and tell you to fuck off, and there's really very little you can do about it.
  - erikerikson 5y ago
    Quite the opposite. You ask the state to use their monopoly on legitimate use of force to enforce your rights in accordance to law. What you imply is a failed state. The state must maintain the legitimacy of that use to maintain consent of the people, that or it slides into far less prosperous configurations.
    - lazide 5y ago
      Being in a far less prosperous (in a meta sense) configuration is surprisingly not as big a deterrent as one might expect, especially if you are making them angry or the official involved would get far more prosperous (in a direct, concrete way) along the way.
    - necovek 5y ago
      Kings and queens have been overthrown and replaced too, so I do not see any difference there either.
- BoxOfRain 5y ago
  This is true in practice pretty much everywhere governments exist though, it's not really a monarchy versus republic thing. The stick is no less painful if it's called "society's stick" rather than "the King's stick" if the government of the day decide to beat you with it.
iammisc 5y ago
No. If you bought it, you own it. The thief now owes the original owner damages. This is true in the United States and I assume England since it's old common law stuff. It's why thieves try to steal and then turn over immediately.
- amerkhalid 5y ago
  No, that’s not correct in the US. If you buy stolen property unknowingly, it can be taken away from you. Had my TV stolen, it ended up in a pawn shop. Luckily, I had receipt and serial number. There was some paperwork and court order but pawnshop had to return TV to me.
  - toss1 5y ago
    Yup, that is also why there are laws against Receiving Stolen Property [1] in the US. This is defined as: >>According to general receiving stolen property laws, it is a crime to accept or purchase any property which you believe or have actual knowledge that it was obtained through illegal means, such as theft. However, receiving stolen property is its own separate crime and thus should not be confused with the similar criminal acts of theft, robbery, or extortion. [1] https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/receiving-stolen-property.html https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/receiving-sto...
    - iammisc 5y ago
      Key word is believe or have actual knowledge. If you bona fide thought it was legit it's okay. The commenter above mentioned pawn shops, a highly regulated activity. Had the tv already been sold, he would have had no recourse to the new owners. The pawn shop may still be liable, depending on how the jurisdiction handles pawn shops.
    - jessriedel 5y ago
      Knowingly receiving stolen property is a different thing.
anonporridge 5y ago
Interesting side note. That's true for property, but not for cash. Cash is legally considered fungible. So, if someone steals a bunch of cash and buys something from you with it, even though that specific cash technically belonged to someone else before theft, it can't be reclaimed even if they can prove it.
- jakeinspace 5y ago
  I'm aware of this, but I do wonder what happens if, rather than using the stolen cash to purchase goods, the thief gave away the money? Either to friends, a random homeless person on the street, or to registered charities. Would that be still considered unreclaimable?
  - anonporridge 5y ago
    idk. Maybe buy a random thing from them for an absurd amount? Or just make it rain on so many people that it's effectively impossible to get it all back. The power of decentralization.

dtparr 5y ago

I believe the 'quirk' here is that the fraud was able to get property ownership updated with the Land Registry, so the new owner is the official owner of record.

dgb23 5y ago
So the Land Registry is at fault? Good luck...
thereddaikon 5y ago
Sounds to me like in the UK you cant truly own land if the government can just decide it belongs to someone else.
- codyb 5y ago
  Pretty much true everywhere. It’s not like you can take anything with you when you’re dead, owning materials is really just a societal construct no matter which way you slice it.
  - H8crilA 5y ago
    Possession is a physical/real property of the universe. Ownership is a legal abstraction/construct.
    - lazide 5y ago
      Being allowed to possess something (instead of being drug off kicking and screaming by the cops) is also a societal/legal construct.
      - necovek 5y ago
        It is a societal/legal construct brough up from the historical experience (eg. if a caveman built himself a hammer, they possessed it as long as they took good care of it). We've redefined what "taking good care of something" means for things you possess, and we made elaborate social/legal constructs to clearly define boundaries of possession. But this is present even in the animal world, even when it comes to "property" (wolfs mark their territory, so do lions, bees go back to their own hives, etc).
    - enord 5y ago
      >Possession is a physical/real property of the universe This assertion immediately falls apart on consideration IMO. Even in simple, controlled circumstances like football, the meaning of "possession" is subject to mutual agreement (i.e. "rules"). You could take some particular definition of "possession" as "natural" or otherwise axiomatic. This is not unheard of, but I think it's a trick of misdirection to place it in the domain of the "physical/real" when it is plainly a political matter.
  - mensetmanusman 5y ago
    Interesting point, I wonder if we will ever have a future where cryogenic freezing works and allows people to own land after they are temporarily dead.
- ska 5y ago
  > cant truly own land if the government can just This is mostly how private property works in practice, everywhere.
  - aqsalose 5y ago
    In civilized countries, it requires a specific decree or order by some government body, possibly after appeals. Not just random clerk writing a line in a book when random stranger comes and tells they own a piece of land and are going to sell it.
    - blitzar 5y ago
      > it requires a specific decree or order by some government body That person is a random clerk > possibly after appeals I can 100% gaurantee that this case goes to court (if it is not settled to the now previous owners satisfaction). I also suspect that the original owner will come out on top, by likely more than the 150k that their 'house' was worth.
      - aqsalose 5y ago
        Only thing I can think of is eminent domain. Here it using it requires either a specific decree by the national government (as in, the prime minister), zoning plan approved by the elected municipal government, or in some limited cases, apparently involving electric power lines, an agency. The owner is to be informed of the proceedings before they take effect. The random clerk does not get to do write off your property belonging to someone else, unless your elected representative had a change voice an opinion in a proceedings where a clear public decision by the elected representatives to specifically take away someone's property was made.
- _jal 5y ago
  > Sounds to me like in the UK you cant truly own land Can you name a country that behaves differently?
- lazide 5y ago
  Possession is 9/10ths of the law, and the gov’t likes to claim possession of all real property in it’s borders in some way or another
- jopsen 5y ago
  Yeah, you don't truly own land, you pay property taxes, etc. It's more like you lease the land :)

kybernetyk 5y ago

The quirk is that in the UK you’re not a free man but only a subject and in the end the crown owns everything and now fuck off, filthy peasant, before the king sends his men.

thesuitonym 5y ago
Is this really different than any other country? Any government (at least in uncontested territories) can come in and tell you to fuck off, and there's really very little you can do about it.
- erikerikson 5y ago
  Quite the opposite. You ask the state to use their monopoly on legitimate use of force to enforce your rights in accordance to law. What you imply is a failed state. The state must maintain the legitimacy of that use to maintain consent of the people, that or it slides into far less prosperous configurations.
  - lazide 5y ago
    Being in a far less prosperous (in a meta sense) configuration is surprisingly not as big a deterrent as one might expect, especially if you are making them angry or the official involved would get far more prosperous (in a direct, concrete way) along the way.
  - necovek 5y ago
    Kings and queens have been overthrown and replaced too, so I do not see any difference there either.
BoxOfRain 5y ago
This is true in practice pretty much everywhere governments exist though, it's not really a monarchy versus republic thing. The stick is no less painful if it's called "society's stick" rather than "the King's stick" if the government of the day decide to beat you with it.

iammisc 5y ago

No. If you bought it, you own it. The thief now owes the original owner damages. This is true in the United States and I assume England since it's old common law stuff. It's why thieves try to steal and then turn over immediately.

amerkhalid 5y ago
No, that’s not correct in the US. If you buy stolen property unknowingly, it can be taken away from you. Had my TV stolen, it ended up in a pawn shop. Luckily, I had receipt and serial number. There was some paperwork and court order but pawnshop had to return TV to me.
- toss1 5y ago
  Yup, that is also why there are laws against Receiving Stolen Property [1] in the US. This is defined as: >>According to general receiving stolen property laws, it is a crime to accept or purchase any property which you believe or have actual knowledge that it was obtained through illegal means, such as theft. However, receiving stolen property is its own separate crime and thus should not be confused with the similar criminal acts of theft, robbery, or extortion. [1] https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/receiving-stolen-property.html https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/receiving-sto...
  - iammisc 5y ago
    Key word is believe or have actual knowledge. If you bona fide thought it was legit it's okay. The commenter above mentioned pawn shops, a highly regulated activity. Had the tv already been sold, he would have had no recourse to the new owners. The pawn shop may still be liable, depending on how the jurisdiction handles pawn shops.
  - jessriedel 5y ago
    Knowingly receiving stolen property is a different thing.

anonporridge 5y ago

Interesting side note. That's true for property, but not for cash. Cash is legally considered fungible. So, if someone steals a bunch of cash and buys something from you with it, even though that specific cash technically belonged to someone else before theft, it can't be reclaimed even if they can prove it.

jakeinspace 5y ago
I'm aware of this, but I do wonder what happens if, rather than using the stolen cash to purchase goods, the thief gave away the money? Either to friends, a random homeless person on the street, or to registered charities. Would that be still considered unreclaimable?
- anonporridge 5y ago
  idk. Maybe buy a random thing from them for an absurd amount? Or just make it rain on so many people that it's effectively impossible to get it all back. The power of decentralization.