What are the legal implications of &quot;finding&quot; money? What luck! You found $1M in a suitcase while hiking in the wilderness. Because you are a law abiding citizen, you diligently report all your found money to the IRS. No one, including yourself, has any way to prove that you did or did not cause this money to be where it was or that you did or did not know it would be there. Are you within the law? Being more serious, is unexplained money in and of itself illegal if you report all your income to the IRS? If an explanation is required, are "I found it", "anonymous gift", or "I decline to explain" a sufficient explanation? On face, it sounds draconian and absurd to outlaw finding money. On the other hand, it's likely that someone who regularly "finds" large amounts of money is an inept money launderer and engages in other illegal activities. It wouldn't be too surprising if simply having large amounts of unexplained money in and of itself was illegal. Does the situation change if instead you find a bag of diamonds (or any other asset) while on your hike? What if this happens on a regular basis? I'm interested in US law.
I am unfamiliar with specifically US laws on this but under common law (which US law is derived from) there is the crime of "Theft by Finding", however, because you turned it over to the authorities who, after the required time period were unable to find the rightful owner, the money becomes yours. However, you still have to pay your taxes on it: http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2014/07/03/found-money-is-awesomebut-must-pay-uncle-sam/ As far as I can see, income is income whether it comes as cash, diamonds or long lost antiques. As far as the money laundering aspect, that is something the authorities would need to prove - as opposed to you just being lucky.
Do criminals really &quot;have no recourse&quot; if their ill-gotten property is stolen by a third party? Basically yes. At sentencing, they can argue that restitution or fines should be limited because the money was in turn stolen from them and they don't have it. For example, I once had a client who was the sole heir to the estate of someone who had a substantial amount of illegal drugs in their possession at the time of the decedent's death (worth perhaps $100,000 USD), but the illegal drugs were stolen after the death of the decedent by someone known to my client. There was no legal way for my client to gain possession that stolen property or its worth.
Stealing money is theft, see RCW Chapter 9a.56 in Washington, and analogous laws in other jurisdictions. What you describe is theft, as defined under RCW 9A.56.020, and that is a crime. Defenses are available only in case of an open taking made under a good faith claim to title to the property (&quot;it's my money&quot;), or an irrelevant defense related to pallet theft from a pallet recycler. There is no exception arising for goods &quot;in the possession of a criminal organization&quot;. There is also no applicable attainder process for declaring an organization to be a &quot;criminal organization&quot; to which such an exception could be referred, in Washington or any other state that I am familiar with. At the federal level, 18 USC Ch. 96 does not have a provision for declaring some organization to be a &quot;criminal organization&quot;, but it does prohibit using proceeds from &quot;a pattern of racketeering activity&quot; that a person or organization participated in, to support a business engaged in interstate or foreign commerce. There is an extensive but specific list of trigger crimes, which are all federal crimes. Supposing that a state wanted to make it legal to steal from criminals, there would have to be a suitable definition of &quot;criminal&quot;. Compare the various sex offender laws, where under dell-defined circumstances, a person is legally declared to be a sex offender required to register. If the property is in fact the proceeds of a criminal activity (not merely &quot;in the possession of a criminal&quot;) or is used to support criminal activities, it might be seized under civil forfeiture statutes. However, those statutes only allow the government to seize the property – vigilante civil forfeiture is still theft, a crime for which you can be prosecuted. The state might seize such assets and, when challenged in court, may have to prove that the assets a seizable (this is highly jurisdiction-dependent). The prospects that a prosecutor will turn a blind eye to a theft on the grounds that the victims are criminals is pretty small. More likely, everything gets seized and everybody gets prosecuted.
Yes, this is illegal. If by "across the state" you mean some distance away but in the same state then the exact law will depend on which state you are in, but as a rule any "conversion" of property to the use of another counts as theft. In this case your aunt has "converted" the property to the use of your Nan (funny legal phrase). The fact that the people doing this are your relatives makes no difference. (When asking about the law here you should always say which state you are in.) Although theft is a crime, you could also start a civil case to get your property back without involving the police. The details depend on where you are, but try googling "(your state) small claims court". Many states have a process for collecting low-value debts or other property without needing lawyers. You need to have a firm conversation with your aunt about this. Tell her that you want your property back, and don't back down. Also call your Nan and explain this to her as well; she may not have realised that she is in possession of stolen property, which is usually a separate crime. If you want more advice on how to get your property back without starting a family row then you might ask on the Interpersonal Skills SE, but it might be better to start with "When are you planning to return my property?" and leave "You are a thief" as a last resort. Edit: As Eric Nolan points out in the comments, you may be a minor. If you are under 18 then your aunt has authority over you that she wouldn't have if you were older. For instance, if she is concerned about your use of video games impacting school-work then confiscating your console and putting it out of your reach would be perfectly legal.
In all likelihood, the judge's order related to data collection and reselling is not legally enforceable. They weren't parties to the expungement action, so the judge doesn't have jurisdiction over them. And, the First Amendment protects the right to say truthful things pretty absolutely. Arguably, if the sites provided the information without making clear that it might not be current because records were expunged or corrected, there might be a claim for negligent misrepresentation, false light, or even defamation, but I seriously doubt that even those claims would hold up. The language in the order might cause sites to comply out of not legally justified concern, or just a desire to be accurate, even if it is not enforceable. So, it doesn't hurt to bring that information to the attention of such sites and ask them to take down the information. But, when push comes to shove, I very much doubt that you would prevail in court enforcing that order against them. Certainly, if you do nothing, they will do nothing, because they are not psychic and have no idea that the court order related to those records has been entered. Even a valid and enforceable order directed at a party over whom a court has jurisdiction is not effective until the person ordered to comply with it has notice of the order. And, there is no system that gives sites like that notice without you taking action to inform them of an order.
Here is an excellent (and extensive) explanation of jurisprudence regarding the "good faith exception" to the admissibility of evidence found due to an error. In short: Yes, the contraband found in Unit B would be evidence admissible in court. (Of course, evidence found in Unit B would only support charges against whomever had a nexus to that property. If the owner of Unit C had no access to Unit B, then evidence in Unit B would not per se implicate him in a crime.) Law enforcement will not return seized property if it believes the property is "contraband." As an example, in Pennsylvania a person can petition a court for return of property seized by law enforcement: Rule 588 requires the petitioner to establish entitlement to lawful possession of the property, but the motion will be rejected if the State successfully argues that the property is contraband, or "derivative contraband" (which has been defined in case law to mean there is "a specific nexus between the property and criminal activity").
Money Laundering The primary crime that you have described is called money laundering. Note that money laundering includes: &quot;structuring financial transactions in order to evade reporting requirements.&quot; Unlike some other forms of money laundering, this does not require that the source of the funds be criminal, or that the actual transfer be criminal, so long as it is intended to avoid reporting requirements. Along the same lines is the even less obvious offense of smurfing. So, this does not cease to be money laundering because: &quot;A legally possesses the money and has a perfectly legal (and very private) reason to pay it to B.&quot; The transfer would typically have had to be reported on a Form W-2 (wage and salary income), a Form 1099 (most transfers that are usually taxable income), a Form 709 (gift tax return), a Form 1098 (mortgage interest), or 1040 Schedule A (deductible payments), or on a cash transaction form if conducted in that manner. The fact that you are reporting it as income, and that there would have been some disclosure requirement if paid to person B, implies that there is some reporting requirement that is avoided. Tax Crimes There are also multiple tax related crimes that could be implicated, not all of which require that taxes due by the person charged by reduced. See, e.g., Conspiracy to Defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. § 371); Attempts To Interfere With Administration of Internal Revenue Laws (I.R.C. § 7212); Fraudulent Returns, Statements or Other Documents (I.R.C. § 7207); Identity Theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7)), etc. Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, for example, is defined as follows: If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.f &quot;Conspiracy to defraud the government is a very broad concept.&quot; Tax Crimes Handbook at 132. Conspiracy to defraud the government is not limited to efforts to obtain money or property, but includes conspiracies where the object of the conspiracy is to obstruct, impair, interfere, impede or defeat the legitimate functioning of the government through fraudulent or dishonest means. Thus, conspiracy to defraud is not confined by reference to common law definitions of fraud. It is a separate crime to interfere with the lawful functions of the government without regard to the monetary consequences. Thus, § 371 involves both efforts to defraud the government of funds as well as interference with the lawful function of the government. The conspiracy to defraud prong of § 371 includes conspiracies to impede, impair, obstruct or defeat the lawful functions of the Treasury Department in the collection of income taxes. United States v. Klein, 247 F.2d 908, 915 (2d Cir. 1957), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 924 (1958). Arguments have been presented that § 371 was not intended to encompass conspiracies to violate the internal revenue laws or conspiracies to defraud the Service but these arguments have been rejected. Although decided in 1957, Klein is the leading case regarding conspiracies to impede and impair the Service and such conspiracies are commonly referred to as &quot;Klein conspiracies.&quot; In Klein the defendants were acquitted of the tax evasion charges but were convicted on the conspiracy count. The wording of the conspiracy count read, in part, as follows: &quot;... to defraud the United States by impeding, impairing, obstructing and defeating the lawful functions of the Department of the Treasury in the collection of the revenue; to wit, income taxes.&quot; In part, it was alleged in Klein that as &quot;part of said conspiracy that the defendants would conceal and continue to conceal the nature of their business activities and the source and nature of their income.&quot; The defendants concealed the source and nature of their income by altering and making false entries in their books, filing false income tax returns, and providing false answers to interrogatories. Thus, a money laundering plan may result in a conspiracy to obstruct the Treasury. United States v. Sanzo, 673 F.2d 64, 69 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 858 (1982). In Sanzo, one defendant argued that there was no direct evidence that the other party to the plan would not report the laundered money or claim deductions. The court felt there was enough circumstantial evidence from which the jury could find that the defendant knew his accomplice would not report large sums of laundered money as income and that he would have to falsify business records to hide the laundering activities. Sanzo, 673 F.2d at 69. Note, it is not necessary to prove that the Service was actually impeded in its efforts to assess and collect the revenue. Tax Crimes Handbook at 132-136 (in the pertinent parts, with most citations omitted). Caveat Regarding Legal Alternatives It is also worth noting that there are legal ways for person A to transfer money to person B without making it apparent, for example, in his check book or on his tax return that the funds were transferred to person B (exactly how is beyond the scope of this answer). Generally speaking, they are distinguishable because the IRS is fully and accurately informed of what is going on in a way that the IRS is not allowed to disclose publicly. But, the crude method used here does not achieve that end.
Not all illegal things are crimes. Lack of evidence. They are asked to testify, and they say "what I said in my book was a lie". There is no general law against lying, except when under oath. Statute of limitations. Saying "10 years ago I did smoke drugs" means that any offence is no longer prosecutable. Lack of details. Which jurisdiction were they in? When did they commit the act, how many acts? You cannot be arrested for being a "bank robber" or a "murderer". You are charged with "robbing Bank X on 123 Fake Street the Thursday 25 April 2018" or "murdering Jim Thio in January 2017". Otherwise the defendant would have a hard time defending himself (how to prove that you have not killed anyone at any time?) All of the above combined with prosecutorial discretion in the form that any possible prosecutor will most likely determine that bringing charges would be just a waste of time and resources. UPDATE February 2018: Just for the sake of completeness, a reference to the situation of Jacques Cassandri, who did boast about a serious crime(a robbery in a Societe Generale vault in 1976) in a book. Unfortunately for him, he made some kind of mistake/miscalculation and the crime had not yet expired, so he has become an example of someone being prosecuted by confessing a crime in a book.