For what crime can you get jailed if a criminal leases you a stolen art piece? What crime can you get jailed for if a criminal leases you a stolen art piece? Let's say you loan an art piece for 1 day, and then you call the authorities because you know it was stolen, can you still get criminally prosecuted for it and for what crime?
england-and-wales Although there's the potential for money laundering the more obvious offence is Handling Stolen Goods contrary to s.22 of the Theft Act 1968 (1) A person handles stolen goods if (otherwise than in the course of the stealing) knowing or believing them to be stolen goods he dishonestly receives the goods, or dishonestly undertakes or assists in their retention, removal, disposal or realisation by or for the benefit of another person, or if he arranges to do so. (2) A person guilty of handling stolen goods shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years. Note that any criminal liability will depend on one's mens rea (i. e. their guilty knowledge) when obtaining the stolen item. That said - the authorities, after considering all the evidence and circumstances, may prefer to use the recipient as a witness against the person from whom they received the artwork instead of prosecuting them.
As the previous reply says, you can't steal something if it was yours already. That's by definition – stealing can only be of something that isn't your possession. However there are three ways you can have a problem despite this, partly referred to in another answer: If there is a law or other legal basis for the other person to have control and keep that object, either for a while or indefinitely. So if your phone is legitimately taken by a police officer, you can't "steal" it but you may still not have the right to take it. But this would be treated as some other crime, not "theft." If you cannot gain legal access it, and would have to commit another kind of crime to get it back. So you can't legally get back money by hacking someone's bank account, or defrauding them, or get back an object by breaking down their front door or using illegal force, or by making unlawful threats and blackmail.On the other hand, if you were invited by them to visit their house (or persuaded them to let you visit) and you found it and took it back while visiting under their consent, or they gave you a lift and while in the car you rummaged in the glove compartment and saw your property there, then the issue of legal consent for access is potentially a non-issue, meaning that taking it back under those conditions (even against their objections when they realised) may well be technically legal in many cases, depending on the exact facts of the case and applicable law. (less likely) If something has happened that means, technically, it isn't yours any more, or never was yours. For example, you accidentally give or throw your valuable phone away in error and someone else legitimately (in law) assumes ownership afterwards, or sign away or renounce something without realising it, or allow someone to use something in a way that gives them some ownership-like rights over it, so that by law you are deemed to have relinquished or waived some/all of your rights as an owner (the other person was honest and didn't defraud you), and you later try to take it back without consent, then in principle you could now be seen as stealing it back.You might also believe something is absolutely yours but in fact legally you don't own it and never did. For example you 'bought' some music or software, or a right to use something under license, and believe you actually own it or that you have a moral right to own it. So, later on, you sell it, dispose of it to someone else, or treat it as yours, when in law, it never was yours to do these things. Technically depending on the situation and exact wording of the law, this might be construed as stealing, in some cases and some jurisdictions. Between these legal limits, there is a grey area where you can get it back in practice despite an illegality. For example if the unlawful access is so minor you are sure it won't be a criminal issue, or you're sure it wouldn't be reported, you might chance it. But that's not a legal issue as much as a personal one. An interesting variant of this applies in English law, although I doubt it has any legal relevance in US law. In English law, "theft" was defined by the Theft Act 1968 as, "A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with intention to permanently deprive the other of it". This meant that a person who could show a court that they did not "intend" to "permanently deprive", or did not act "dishonestly" or "appropriate" the property (treat it as if they were its owner), might in fact have a strong legal defence against a charge of theft. Update from comment below "If you saw it in a shop would you be able to take it and run away?" You wouldn't have to. In almost all cases if something isn't legally yours, you can't legally pass ownership to anyone else, such as a store, whether for money or not, because it wasn't ever yours to pass good (legal) title. So the item is still owned by its original legitimate owner, meaning the exact same legal position still applies as above, if you had discovered it was in someone's house. It could change hands many times (not just once) from thief to fence to store to shopper to friend as a gift, and even so, the same would still apply - it would remain yours in law. If anything it's a bit easier if you saw it in a shop. A shop usually consents to members of the public entering - they don't have to ask normally! - and you might ask to see the item or look closely (if it's locked in the window). You now have it with consent and without any crime. If confident, you can walk out completely legally with your possession. (Tracking down the "rogue" or recovering any money paid for it, is their problem not yours in the eyes of the law). That said, realistically you wouldn't do it that way. This is slipping into personal view rather than law, but this is how I'd do it instead of "grab and run." Assuming a "typical" store and store staff, you would ask them to fetch the manager, and you would explain firmly that you claim this is your stolen property, and therefore not owned by them (nor do they have any rights to make any decisions about it), and you are taking it back. You would offer sight of ID or some means of contact, telling them this is so that they have a means to contact you, if they wish to dispute it via lawyers or police. You would offer to wait for the police if they wish, but maintain that you are not parting with it and they may call the police if they disagree; when they arrive, tell the police exactly the same, and that you have given your ID and waited there, as a mark of good faith, and invite them to come back with you to see where you live or proof of purchase or anything else, if relevant. You would tell the police that if they think you have committed a crime according to the law then they must of course arrest you for it, but if not, you now wish to go. You would meet any police request to give it to the police or store by asserting that it is your property and you would rather not, or by asking if you will be committing a criminal offence (if so which) if you refuse, and refuse if you feel able to do so. Then follow whichever way it goes. You would do these things because they are fair, reasonable, and they mark you out as someone asserting a right, not a thief yourself, and they reduce the odds that you will be taken for a thief, or meet with violence in their efforts to recover it. After all, the storekeeper and police can claim "reasonable belief" for any of their actions afterwards, so it's best that you reduce their likelihood of something nasty.
I think the officer is probably lying, not just mistaken, but they are not required to always be truthful. In addition to the law against possessing ID with intent to commit, or to aid or abet, any crime, it is also against the law to be knowingly in possession of a stolen credit card, or any other property. An example of a strict-liability possession crime, which the officer knows of, is that it is a crime to possess heroin, period. I am skeptical that the officer actually believes that there is a law making it a crime to be in possession of a credit card with permission, and suspect that he thinks it is stolen.
Police officers can lie to you He asked to search your car. He’s allowed to do this. You said no. You’re allowed to do this. He lied to you when he said he would get the K9 to search the car - this would not be legal. But he’s allowed to tell you lies. You made an admission of criminal activity. He now has probable cause to search. He legally searched, confirmed your admission and booked you. Seems legit to me.
Anyone can be arrested, as long as the police (and in some cases, anyone) have probable cause to do so. This generally includes two points: You are in the process of committing a criminal act The police have probable cause, generally through evidence, that you are in the process of, about to, or have committed a criminal act. This usually requires obtaining a warrant for the arrest. However, it's important not to conflate searches with arrest. Arrests are when you are being taken into custody for the reasons mentioned above. Searches are when your personal belongings (i.e. property), are searched to collect evidence. It is not up to police to convict someone. This is the job of the judicial system. There's a bit of terminology here: convictions basically mean being found guilty of an offence. Police don't have the ability to convict someone of an offence. They do have the ability to arrest, and charge with an offence. To charge someone with a crime basically means to accuse them of having done something. Now let's get to the actual crime. Since you haven't mentioned a specific jurisdiction, I'm going to use Canadian cases and law, but in general, it should apply worldwide. If the police have reason to believe that you are engaging in unlawful hacking-related behaviour, then they have the authority to arrest you. They simply need to have a reasonable belief that you are engaged in the crime. Something such as connecting you with an IP address and connecting that you were online at the time is enough. If the police need to find out more information (which they generally do, to investigate further into the matter) - they can obtain a search warrant afterwards. With this, they can legally search into your computer, and investigate. Any evidence that they collect can be used in court. I've recently done some research into cyber crimes. One rather infamous case involved the attack on multiple large scale websites, including Dell, Yahoo, and Amazon, in 2000. This sparked a large scale investigations, between the RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) and the FBI. The attacks were claimed by some to cause nearly 1.7 billion dollars of damage. The hacker was charged with 58 different offences. You can imply from the linked article that he was arrested before his computer was searched.
As a legal matter, you need to call or visit your local police station, report that you found some lost money, answer their questions honestly and dispassionately (they don't care about your hate etc. unless it's causing an active situation they have to deal with, and even then they don't much want to hear you go on about it), and then let them deal with it. You can tell your neighbor, if he inquires, that you have handed the matter to the local police and he can inquire with them about claiming it; feel free to ask the police to affirm that's the suitable course of action. You can expect to be given legal possession of it if they are unable to determine the true owner in accordance with local law. You can ask the police for details on that, though they'll probably just tell you as a matter of procedure without prompting.
Your confessions, to anyone, can be used against you. If A admits to B that A stole the car, B can testify to what A said. In fact, if B accuses A of a crime and A says nothing (and C witnesses this), C can testify as to what B and A said (or didn't say) – this is known as an adoptive admission, and it is up to the jury to decide if they think the silence is significant. Recordings are likewise admissible. All evidence is in principle defeasible, so if there is a video of "you" committing a crime, you can make the case that it wasn't really you, and the jury will weigh the evidence to see if they are firmly convinced that you did commit the crime (at least in New Jersey... long story about 'burden of proof').
None, if the intention is merely trespassing, unlike burglary which requires intent to steal, commit criminal damage, or inflict grevious bodily harm or if the building is a protected site - neither of which isn't evident from the question. Note, for both offences, the actus reus is entry - there is no requirement for any form of &quot;breaking&quot; Further to ohwilleke's comment, unless the lock is damaged or destroyed etc, then there is no offence of criminal damage