Misplaced Pages

#675324

83-467: Congress first passed the Act in 1934 to respond to thieves and fences who increasingly exploited channels of interstate commerce to avoid state law enforcement; since then, the Act has been amended multiple times and found applications in many other contexts, including the looting and smuggling of unprovenanced artifacts. Section 2311 of Title 18 provides the definitions for certain words and phrases used in

166-499: A darknet market ) and thus might be thought of as a fence in a more traditional sense. At the other extreme are intermediaries that are legitimate and respected platforms being used in defiance of their terms and conditions and in spite of aggressive and ongoing actions to interdict such illegal activities. Justice Manual The Justice Manual (known before 2018 as the United States Attorneys' Manual )

249-422: A fence , or receiver , (銷贓者), was a merchant who bought and sold stolen goods . Fences were part of the extensive network of accomplices in the criminal underground of Ming and Qing China. Their occupation entailed criminal activity, but as fences often had a non-criminal primary occupation, they acted as liaisons between the respectable community and the criminal underworld, living a "precarious existence on

332-468: A "defence" against being caught. Thieves who patronise fences are willing to accept a low profit margin in order to reduce their risks by instantly "washing their hands" of illicitly gotten loot (such as black market goods) and disassociating from the criminal act that procured it. After sales, fences recoup their investment by disguising the stolen nature of the goods (via methods such as repackaging and altering/effacing serial numbers ) and reselling

415-628: A common benefit about compounding: nobody was in a better position to do so than thief-takers . Thief-takers grew increasingly notorious in England as a reward was introduced by the Crown for each successfully condemned criminal. Some of them, such as Anthony Dunn, publicly referred to as "pretended Thiefe-taker" in a 1707 document, used their social power as thief-takers as an advantage for receiving. Thief-takers were usually so involved with thieves and gangs of thieves that they could easily condemn them for

498-458: A concern for the government during the mid to late Ming era. The government passed a law in which illegal smugglers who traded with foreigners without the consent of the government would be punished with exile to the border for military service. In areas where military troops were stationed, stealing and selling military property would result in more severe punishment. In the Jiaqing time, a case

581-485: A disadvantage of trying to sell stolen goods outside a fence's home city directly to buyers is that the fence may not be well-known in the community and thus not likely to be trusted by potential customers whether law-abiding or otherwise. To overcome this, fences often develop clandestine relationships with trusted fences in other locales, thus allowing stolen goods to be easily exchanged in bulk by fences in different cities. For some types of stolen goods, fences disassemble

664-402: A fee a felony of the same importance and punishment as the crime (theft) related to the goods returned (which meant a capital offence in most cases, with raised potential reward for definitive evidence, from £40 to £140). Eventually, the government took direct action against Wild through lawyers, succeeding in condemning and executing him in 1725. There is no registered case of female fences of

747-513: A fence was an option that was not too strenuous, but had the potential to bring in a fair sum of income. Most fences worked within their own town or village. For example, in some satellite areas of the capital, military troops lived within or close to the commoner population and they had the opportunity to hold illegal trades with commoners. In areas like Baoding and Hejian , local peasants and community members not only purchased military livestock such as horses and cattle, but also helped to hide

830-464: A fine or imprisonment up to one year. Section 2315 of Title 18 proscribes five categories of fencing-related conduct. Broadly speaking, paragraph one is concerned with stolen goods; paragraphs two and three with forgery; and paragraph four with veterans' memorial objects. The following table outlines the offenses. ^ a. In general, the punishment for any fencing offense involving a pre-retail medical product, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 670, shall be

913-500: A general rule of prioritizing the prosecution of fencing over the prosecution of theft, especially where fencing was carried out as part of a legitimate business selling stolen goods to the public. As for offenses related to forgeries proscribed under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2314 and 2315, the Manual calls for an application of "balanced" judgments that leave prosecution primarily to state prosecutors, unless federal prosecutors need to step in due to

SECTION 10

#1732782731676

996-595: A good. Itinerant barbers often amassed important sources of information and news as they travelled, and sold significant pieces of information to those who offered money. Often, such information was sold to criminals in search of places to hide or individuals to rob. In this way, itinerant barbers also served the role as a keeper of information that could be sold both to members of the criminal underground and to powerful clients. Fences not only sold stolen goods but were also occasionally involved in human trafficking hostages that bandits had kidnapped. Women and children were

1079-424: A greater risk of the thief being caught. As well, selling stolen goods takes a great deal of time and effort ( transaction costs ), as the thief would have to try to contact a number of potential buyers and show them the merchandise. Some habitual thieves are so well known to police that if the thief were to attempt to sell any used goods , this would quickly draw the attention of law enforcement. The fence disguises

1162-429: A high price, children were sold regardless of their physical appearance or family background. Young boys were often sold as servants or entertainers, while young girls were often sold as prostitutes. As with merchants of honest goods, one of the most significant tools of a fence was their network of connections. As the middlemen between robbers and clients, fences needed to form and maintain widespread connections in both

1245-425: A high-quality item for a low price, in cash, from a stranger at a bar or from the back of a van, there is a higher likelihood that the items may be stolen. On the other hand, if a purchaser buys the same high-quality item for the standard retail price from a used goods store, and obtains a proper receipt, the purchaser may reasonably believe that the item is not stolen (even if, in fact, it is a stolen item). E-fencing

1328-419: A higher level are the "master fences", who do not deal with street-level thieves, but only with other fences. Research on fences shows that they view themselves as entrepreneurs, relying on networking with and patronage by prominent criminals to become successful in their word-of-mouth-based "wheeling and dealing." They occupy the middle ground between the criminal world (thieves, burglars, and shoplifters) and

1411-440: A legacy that persists to this date. Nevertheless, these are by no means representative of all litigation that has been brought under the Act. Frederick Schultz, a prominent art dealer, conspired with several others to smuggle sculptures and other antiques out of Egypt and sell them in the U.S.; as part of the conspiracy, Schultz and his co-conspirators coated some of the antiques in plastic to look like cheap souvenirs and fabricated

1494-597: A low sum far below market value for stolen goods to bandits, and resold the goods to earn a profit. Two different Ming Laws, the Da Ming Lü 大明律 and the Da Gao 大诰, drafted by the Hongwu Emperor Zhu Yuanzhang, sentenced fences to different penalties based on the category and value of the products that were stolen. In coastal regions, illegal trading with foreigners, as well as smuggling became

1577-504: A parallel civil forfeiture proceeding brought on behalf of the U.S. against the fossil, the S.D.N.Y. denied Prokopi's motion to dismiss after applying the Schultz doctrine to the dispute. With respect to the second and third Schultz elements, the court held that, in the pleading phase, the complaint only needed to allege Mongolian constitutional and statutory provisions that were "on their face" patrimony laws and did not need to establish

1660-406: A safety layer against effective prosecution. A victim of theft was often willing to pay in order to get their goods back, in order to spare themselve further troubles and/or if the items taken had the potential to reveal unflattering details about their personal affairs. In addition to that, for many centuries, prosecution in England was entirely at the expense (of personal money, time, and effort) of

1743-525: A single indictment. Separately, both 18 U.S.C. §§ 2314 and 2315 define a "veterans' memorial object" as any grave marker or other monument intended to permanently honor a veteran or an event of national military historical significance. Section 2314 of Title 18 proscribes six categories of transportation-related conduct. Broadly speaking, paragraphs one and two are concerned with stolen goods; paragraphs three through five with forgery; and paragraph six with veterans' memorial objects. The following table outlines

SECTION 20

#1732782731676

1826-413: A steady income from her activity. The same governess protects and offers refuge to her affiliates whenever possible, or recruits thieves into small groups, always via middlemen, in order to protect their thieves' identities in case some of them were caught and willing to confess. She is also a main intelligence source and often a direct instigator to theft, such as in a case of fire in a well-off house in

1909-630: A thief, and eventually taught her the basics of thievery, redirecting Moll to work with other senior thieves. Defoe shows how crucial as well as subtle receiving was in building the whole of crime activity in London. The Governess is officially a pawnbroker, and she uses this legal business to also sell stolen goods. Sometimes, such as in the case of a silver inscribed mug stolen by Moll, she smelts metals, in order to avoid getting caught while re-selling. Along with receiving activity, she actively protects and supports many criminals and thieves in order to secure

1992-591: A variety of social backgrounds interacted. Brothels also helped bandits to hide and sell stolen goods because of the special Ming Law that exempted brothels from being held responsible “for the criminal actions of their clients.” Although the government required brothel owners to report any suspicious activity, the lack of government enforcement as well as the motivation of owners to make an extra income from fencing led brothels to become safe houses for bandits and gangs. Pawnshops were also affiliated with fencing stolen goods. The owners or employees of such shops often paid

2075-416: A verdict category of guilty. The 1718 Transportation Act also criminalised returning goods for a fee, which reveals that by then, receiving had already been taken to the next stage: returning goods to their owner, for a fee, instead of selling them in the second-hand market. Thieves could in this way act as go-betweens themselves, but go-betweens could raise some suspicions, whereas relying on receivers added

2158-574: Is a looseleaf text designed as a quick and ready reference for United States Attorneys and other employees of the United States Department of Justice responsible for the prosecution of violations of federal law . It contains general policies and guidance relevant to the work of the United States Attorneys' offices and to their relations with the legal divisions, investigative agencies, and other components within

2241-679: Is an old kind of criminal, historically attested in many countries, and with deep and complex dynamics within society. Receiving was a widespread crime in Modern England and a concern for the English government of that period. It involved many other kinds of activities and crimes, and it saw its peak in the early 18th century with the notorious Jonathan Wild . Receiving is intrinsically connected to theft, as receivers, by definition, buy previously stolen goods in order to make profit out of them later. When organised theft grew in London thanks to

2324-500: Is by their level of involvement in buying and selling stolen goods; for some, fencing is an occasional "sideline" activity, while it is an economic mainstay for others. At the lowest level, a hustler or drug dealer may occasionally accept stolen goods. At the highest level would be a fence whose main criminal income comes from buying and selling stolen items. Two tiers of fences can be distinguished: The lower level of fences are those who directly buy stolen goods from thieves and burglars. At

2407-477: Is demonstrated by the career of Charles Hitchen , who was known as a thief-taker. He bought off the position of Under City Marshal with his wife's money in order to have one of the best positions amongst the thief-takers of the City. However, a vast part of his income came from the receiving activity related to the network of connections with London's underworld. Hitchen controlled this network through his official (that

2490-502: Is the sale of items on the Internet that have been obtained illegally. There are some key differences between "e-fencing" and traditional fencing. Both involve fraudulently obtained goods and/or services being bought and sold in transactions involving a minimum of three distinct parties, usually understood to be the thief who stole the goods, the fence who acts as an intermediary, and the final purchaser. With traditional fencing, typically,

2573-437: Is to say, legal) position as a thief-taker. The synergy between receiving, theft, and corruption, as well as official activities such as thief-taking or pawnbroking was a huge dynamic bond where each element enhanced the others in a vicious circle. The master of this powerful synergy of London underworld was Jonathan Wild , who replaced his previous master, Charles Hitchen, in 1713, and gained control of London's crime and

National Stolen Property Act - Misplaced Pages Continue

2656-533: Is triggered, the Department can not only press criminal charges against the suspects but also compel the civil forfeiture of the artifacts at issue pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981. The following two examples illustrate how the Act could be invoked in a criminal prosecution involving archaeological artifacts and in a civil forfeiture proceeding involving paleontological artifacts, respectively. As discussed below, they each received much public attention and left behind

2739-490: The 1718 Transportation Act , which, together with other measures, made fences main felons and not simply accessories to other felonies. Nonetheless, it was not easy to prove that a dealer knowingly accepted stolen goods, especially without the related theft event being fully cleared out. There are 5,664 proceedings stored in the Old Bailey Online archive where the offence category is receiving. Of these, 1,973 have

2822-693: The Commerce Clause to respond to the advent of the automobile and the challenge it presented state law enforcement efforts: for the first time in history, a valuable piece of property, once stolen, could itself be used as the means to flee across state boundaries and thereby escape state jurisdiction. Fifteen years later, in 1934, Congress expanded the predecessor statute by passing the National Stolen Property Act, with similar intent: in order to detect and punish "[g]angsters who now convey stolen property, except vehicles, across

2905-515: The Old Bailey Online archive where the offence category is receiving. Of these, 1,858, nearly one-third, have a defendant gender category of female. The growth of the crime of receiving in Early Modern society, combined with the increasing interest of society on reading, led to depictions of the crime in the works of writers such as Daniel Defoe 's Moll Flanders and John Gay 's The Beggar's Opera . The novel Moll Flanders narrates

2988-528: The "Thomas Alcock Collection" to assign a false provenance to them. While Schultz was indicted and convicted at trial for the conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 , the underlying substantive offense was a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2315. The prosecution was the subject of public attention, especially in the art world . On appeal, the Second Circuit , attempting to reconcile U.S. v. McClain , 545 F.2d 988 (5th Cir. 1977), with its own precedents on

3071-459: The Act that were unrelated to looting, held that an artifact is "stolen" within the meaning of the Act if: Now recognized as the " Schultz doctrine," this formulation has been adopted by the Fifth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits as well. Eric Prokopi, a Florida businessman and self-proclaimed "commercial paleontologist," imported the fossilized remains of a Tyrannosaurus bataar from Mongolia into

3154-458: The Act. For example, "money" is defined to include not just the legal tender of the U.S. or any foreign country, but also any counterfeit; "security" receives an expansive definition that also includes, among other things, not just "any instrument commonly known as a 'security,'" but also any forged representation thereof; and "value" is defined as the greatest of the aggregate face, par, or market value of all goods, securities, and money identified in

3237-401: The Department of Justice. The Manual is an internal document of the Department of Justice, and as such, does not have the force of law. It is updated periodically in much the same way as commercial looseleaf services are. New hard copies of the manual are issued annually to the department's attorneys. It is also available online. The last comprehensive update of the manual was in 2018,

3320-469: The State line, with that immemorial gesture of derision," Congress decided to no longer limit the provisions of the predecessor statute to motor vehicles; rather, the new Act applied to everything from forged securities to run-of-the-mill goods. Both 18 U.S.C. §§ 2314 and 2315 have been amended multiple times since enactment. The following survey focuses on some of the amendments that either materially affected

3403-549: The U.S. or any foreign government and to forged or altered bills or bank notes intended to circulate as money in a foreign country. These offenses are usually prosecutable under one of the statutes in Chapter 25 of Title 18 instead. The predecessor to the National Stolen Property Act was the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act , which passed Congress in 1919. In essence, this predecessor statute invoked

National Stolen Property Act - Misplaced Pages Continue

3486-511: The U.S., allegedly having mislabelled the shipments to clear the customs. He then personally cleaned and assembled the remains and sold it for more than one million U.S. dollars at an auction. Before the transaction closed, however, the affair caught public attention, and President Tsakhia Elbegdorj of Mongolia intervened. Consequently, federal prosecutors charged Prokopi (just like Frederick Schultz, discussed above) with violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 2315, to which he eventually pled guilty. In

3569-429: The actual source of the stolen goods is discovered they can plausibly deny any knowledge of such illegal activity. Thus, while one fence's salvage yard may consist mainly of stolen auto parts, another fence's used goods store might consist mainly of legitimately purchased used goods, with the stolen merchandise acting as a minor, but profitable, sideline. Thieves agree to use fences because their alternatives may present

3652-465: The defendant knowingly possessed stolen properties but could not be shown to have received them in a particular district. Second, the requirement that the stolen properties formed part of interstate commerce was replaced with the bright-line test of whether they had crossed a state or U.S. boundary. In opting for this bright-line test, Congress intended to eliminate the defense that the stolen properties had left interstate commerce by "coming to rest" or by

3735-479: The dismissal of provincial commissioner, Zhu Wan, but also eventually “[drove] him to suicide”. It was also essential for fences to maintain a relationship with bandits in order to protect their livelihood. However, it was just as true that bandits needed fences to make a living. As a result, fences often held dominance in their relationship with bandits. Taking advantage of their dominance in their relationships with bandits, fences also cheated bandits by manipulating

3818-456: The easiest to sell and among the most common "objects" the fences sold. Most female hostages were sold to fences and then sold as prostitutes , wives, or concubines. One example of human trafficking comes from Chen Akuei's gang, who abducted a servant girl and sold her to Lin Baimao, who in turn sold her as a wife for thirty pieces of silver. In contrast to women who required beauty to sell for

3901-525: The fence a portion of the spoils. Butchers received stolen animals because owners could no longer recognise their livestock after the animal had been slaughtered. Animals were very valuable commodities within Ming China, and a robber could potentially sustain a living from stealing livestock and selling them to butcher-fences. Although fences usually worked with physical stolen property, fences who also worked as itinerant barbers also sold information as

3984-519: The first paragraph of § 2315), the Justice Manual directs federal prosecutors to decide whether or not to bring federal charges based on the same factors that are applicable to other non-governmental thefts or frauds. Adjusting the monetary threshold of $ 5,000 for inflation, the Manual also establishes a general rule of limiting federal prosecution to offenses involving more than $ 60,000, absent other noteworthy circumstances. It further establishes

4067-406: The fringes of respectable society." Fences often worked alongside bandits in a network of criminal accomplices that was essential to ensuring both the safety and the success of fences. The path into the occupation of a fence stemmed, to a large degree, from necessity. As most fences came from the ranks of poorer people, they often took whatever work they could—both legal and illegal. Working as

4150-508: The good and sell the individual parts, because the sale of parts is less risky. For example, a stolen car or bicycle may be disassembled so that the parts can be sold individually. Another tactic used by some fences is to retain stolen items for some time before selling them, which lessens the likelihood that the burglary victims or police will be actively looking for the items in auctions and pawnshops. The prices fences pay thieves typically depend both on norms and on legitimate market rates for

4233-427: The goods as near to the market price as possible without drawing suspicion. This process often relies on a legal business (such as a pawnshop , flea market , or street vendor ) in order to " launder " the stolen goods by intermixing them with legally-obtained items of the same type. Fencing is illegal in all countries, but legally proving a violation of anti-fencing laws can be difficult. The fence, or receiver,

SECTION 50

#1732782731676

4316-454: The greater of the punishment under this section and the punishment under § 670. ^ ^ b. But the punishment for the receipt, possession, concealment, sale, or disposal of veterans' memorial objects collectively worth less than $ 1,000 shall be limited to a fine or imprisonment up to one year. Both 18 U.S.C. §§ 2314 and 2315 contain provisions that expressly preempt their application to forged or altered bonds or securities issued by

4399-411: The implementation of the Act or materially expanded it; it is not meant to be comprehensive. Congress amended the first paragraph of 18 U.S.C. § 2315 in two ways. First, the mere possession of stolen properties was added as a proscribed conduct alongside the receipt and concealment of such properties. In criminalizing possession, Congress intended to eliminate the jurisdictional problem that arose where

4482-423: The items in question. Vulnerable sellers, such as drug addicts or casual thieves, may receive less than 20% of an item's value. Higher prices, sometimes as high as 50% of an item's value in a legal market, can be commanded by a professional thief, especially one who has managed to remain relatively unknown to police and/or who concentrates on valuable items. Fences may take advantage of thieves by deceiving them about

4565-410: The legitimate world (everyday people who purchase used goods). Some active fences go farther in their business, maintaining longstanding contacts and even teaching thieves how to practice their craft, whether by identifying specific products or by teaching them tools of the trade. The degree to which the purchasers of the stolen goods know or suspect that the items are stolen varies. If a purchaser buys

4648-487: The markets while working, and formed acquaintances and temporary associations for mutual aid and protection. In one example, an owner of a teahouse overheard the conversation between Deng Yawen, a criminal, and others planning a robbery and offered to help to sell the loot for a portion of the spoils. At times, the robbers themselves filled the role of fences, selling to people they met on the road. This may have been preferable for robbers because they would not have to pay

4731-561: The neighbourhood (more vulnerable to theft because of the sudden emergency), and finally becomes a broker for goods stolen by Moll to a drunken gentleman. In that case, the amount gained is allegedly greater than what she would have gained by standard re-selling in the secondary market. The Governess embodies female social cunning in London's underworld, from Defoe's point of view. She is a typical receiver of her time, and whereas many male receivers used thief-taking as an official business, she relies on pawnbroking. Under traditional Chinese law

4814-506: The offenses requiring knowledge that a property was stolen, a defendant did not need to know that the stolen property was transported in interstate commerce. To satisfy the jurisdictional hook, a defendant need only have caused a stolen property to be transported in interstate commerce and need not have personally transported it. For the purpose of the monetary threshold, the value of a property can be established by its market value either when stolen or at any point while being concealed. For

4897-413: The offenses requiring knowledge that a property was stolen, the fact-finder is permitted to infer that knowledge from the "unexplained possession of recently stolen property" or from other circumstances that could persuade a "person of ordinary intelligence". To be convicted of concealing stolen properties, a defendant need only have aided or abetted others in doing so and need not have actually possessed

4980-399: The offenses. ^ a. In general, the punishment for any transportation offense involving a pre-retail medical product, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 670, shall be the greater of the punishment under this section and the punishment under § 670. ^ ^ b. But the punishment for the transportation of veterans' memorial objects collectively worth less than $ 1,000 shall be limited to

5063-482: The only innocent and unwitting party is the final purchaser. On the other hand, e-fencing may describe transactions in which there is direct interaction between the original thief and the final purchaser, while the "intermediary" is an online platform. In e-fencing (unlike traditional fencing) the level of culpability on the part of the intermediary platform may vary. On one hand, the platform's operators may be knowingly or recklessly permitting such activity (for instance in

SECTION 60

#1732782731676

5146-472: The passage of time. Congress added all provisions pertaining to veterans' memorial objects (discussed above) as they now appear in both 18 U.S.C. §§ 2314 and 2315. The investigative jurisdiction for the offenses proscribed under the Act is vested in the Federal Bureau of Investigation. For offenses related to stolen goods (i.e., those proscribed under the first two paragraphs of 18 U.S.C. § 2314 or

5229-565: The prices they paid bandits for stolen property. This was possible because fences often had an official and legal means of making a living, as well as illegal activities, and could threaten to turn bandits in to the authorities. Aside from simply buying and selling stolen goods, fences often played additional roles in the criminal underground of early China. Inns and teahouses became places for bandits and gangs to gather in order to exchange information and plan for their next crime. Harborers (people who provided safe houses for criminals) often played

5312-408: The properties. Litigation is regularly brought under the Act. Among other things, it allows the Department of Justice to combat the smuggling of artifacts that have been looted directly from archaeological or paleontological sites, which cannot be prosecuted like regular theft because there is usually no modern person who has had possession in fact over these artifacts. Once 18 U.S.C. §§ 2314 or 2315

5395-451: The proprietary purpose behind them. Prokopi later withdrew his claim to the fossil, and the U.S. obtained a default judgment . Following the guilty plea and the forfeiture, Prokopi furnished U.S. law enforcement with a trove of information regarding the global black market for fossil trade. To some extent, his cooperation jumpstarted the policing of the fossil trade in the U.S., which was seriously lagging behind, and eventually contributed to

5478-425: The prosecutor. Therefore, given the difficulty of actually proving receiving in courts, common people, especially shopkeepers, often preferred compounding, feeling that prosecuting was not worth it. This gave a considerable advantage to receivers. In order to effectively act as go-betweens for compounding, or brokerage, fences needed to personally know thieves or have ways to easily interact and bargain with them for

5561-426: The repatriation of this specimen and many others. Fence (criminal) A fence , also known as a receiver , mover , or moving man , is an individual who knowingly buys stolen goods in order to later resell them for profit. The fence acts as a middleman between thieves and the eventual buyers of stolen goods who may not be aware that the goods are stolen. As a verb (e.g. " to fence stolen goods"),

5644-555: The reward, or use this power to intimidate and command thieves to do their bidding. In exchange for clemency or protection from capture or condemnation, they could have thieves to steal under their command. Indeed, thief-takers could act as direct instigators, supporting their thieves with intelligence or offering them shelter at need (when convenient), and then acting as receivers with the stolen goods. Through parallel occupations , receivers could feed their own business. Confirmation of how thief-taking and receiving were tightly connected

5727-399: The role of a fence as well, in receiving stolen goods from their harboured criminals to sell to other customers. Safe houses also included brothels and opium dens, as well as gambling parlors, and employees or owners of such institutions often functioned as harborers, as well as fences. These safe houses were located in places where there was a high floating population and where people from

5810-492: The same fame of Wild or Hitchen. However, women had active roles in both receiving and theft. Elizabeth Hitchen gave her inheritance money to her husband Charles in order to buy the Under City Marshal office for his plans. Moreover, women could also be active fences. For example, Elizabeth Fisher managed her own receiving business in her husband's alehouse. As of early 2018 a total of 5,664 proceedings were stored in

5893-403: The scope of the offenses or the failure of their state counterparts. In enforcing the Act, the Department of Justice does not currently consider a stolen or fraudulently obtained credit card to be a "security," even though it would arguably be within the expansive definition of "security" under 18 U.S.C. § 2311. This subsection summarizes how courts have addressed certain gaps and ambiguities in

5976-447: The stolen livestock from the military. Local peasants and other members of the community became fences and hid criminal activities from officials, in exchange for goods or money from soldiers. Most fences were not individuals who only bought and sold stolen goods to make a living. The majority of fences had a variety of legitimate occupations, including labourers and peddlers . Such individuals encountered criminals, for example in

6059-411: The stolen nature of the goods, if possible, so that he or she can sell them closer to the market price. Depending on the stolen item, the fence may attempt to remove, deface, or replace serial numbers on the stolen item before reselling it. In some cases, fences will transport the stolen items to a different city to sell them, because this lessens the likelihood that the items will be recognised. However,

6142-475: The support of receivers, the establishment started to fight it with new laws, often aimed at receivers: receiving was acknowledged as the core of property crime. Receiving was not considered as a felony (crime) in common law until 1691, when fences became potential targets of charges as accessories to theft. This meant that in order to judge a suspected receiver, it was necessary to condemn the related thief first. Later laws further focused on receivers, especially

6225-466: The text of the Act. It is only intended to answer some of the practical questions that may arise in implementing the Act and is far from being comprehensive. Courts have interpreted the phrase "goods, wares, and merchandise" broadly, holding that it encompasses all personal properties or chattels as long as they are ordinarily subjects of commerce and have some "tangible existence" (as opposed to intangible properties like digitally stored information). For

6308-554: The title of "thief-taker general". His power was due to his ruthless thief-taking and intimidation activities as well as a complex web of intelligence also built around the diffusion of newspapers. However, overly bold receiving was his undoing, as it provoked the English government to promote further laws against receiving and related activities, such as the Transportation Act in 1718, also known as "Jonathan Wild Act", and its extension in 1720, which made returning goods for

6391-419: The value of items and the relevant market conditions. For example, a fence may falsely tell a petty thief that the market for the type of good which the thief is selling is flooded with this type of merchandise, to justify paying out a lower price. There are different types of fences. One way to categorise fences is by the type of good in which they trade, such as jewels, power tools, or electronics. Another way

6474-485: The whole life of its protagonist (Moll Flanders), but a relevant part of it is about her becoming a master thief. Moll's activity as a thief relied on the protection and support of her governess, who also acted as a receiver for the goods stolen by her affiliates. She is the one who buys Moll's stolen goods the first time, as Moll narrates "I was now at a loss for a market for my goods... At last I resolved to go to my old governess." The governess character sealed Moll's fate as

6557-423: The word describes the behaviour of the thief in the transaction with the fence. As is the case with the word fence and its derivatives when used in its other common meanings (i.e. as a type of barrier or enclosure, and also as a sport ), the word in this context is derived from the word defence . Among criminals, the fence originated in thieves' slang tracing from the notion of such transactions providing

6640-445: The “polite” society and among criminals. There were cases in which members of “well-respected” society became receivers and harbourers. They not only helped bandits to sell the stolen goods but also acted as agents of the bandits in collecting protection money from local merchants and residents. These "part-time" fences with high social status used their connection with bandits to help themselves gain social capital as well as wealth. It

6723-630: Was arrested and found guilty of stealing and selling government salt was put to death. Fencing is often conducted through legal businesses. Some fences maintain a legitimate-seeming "front" through which they can sell stolen merchandise. Depending on the type of stolen merchandise a fence deals in, "front" businesses might be discount stores, used goods stores, coin and gem stores, auction houses , flea markets , or auto salvage yards. The degree of illicit activity in each "front" business differs from fence to fence. Fences will often attempt to mix stolen goods with legitimately-obtained merchandise, so that if

6806-492: Was important for fences to maintain a positive relationship with their customers, especially their richer gentry clients. When some members of the local elites joined the ranks of fences, they not only protected bandits to protect their own business interests, but they actively took down any potential threats to their illegal profiting, even government officials . In the Zhejiang Province , local elites not only caused

6889-415: Was recorded of a robber stealing and selling military horses. The emperor himself gave orders that the thieves who had stolen the horses and the people who had helped to sell the horses would be put on a cangue and sent to labour in a border military camp. In salt mines, the penalty for workers who stole and/or sold salt was the most severe. Because of the enormous value of salt in Ming China, anyone who

#675324