Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty bombjack
So intent matters? The OP could theoretically argue that the premium from the Topps pack was more the frame (as a presentation piece) than the card and frame in its entirety. Topps was putting random cards into frames with zero correlation between the two, so OP was just doing same. The argument would become how natural the assumption that these came in packs as such would be (I imagine).
None of us believes that about the OP's intent, of course, but I think this is a pretty gray area as well in that the Topps206 holder is not too far differentiated from a generic topholder (seems closer to that than to a slab, at least). I don't know how easy it is to remove and replace the cover.
Sorry if I'm annoying anyone here. I'm enjoying the back and forth quite a bit.
|
Yes - typically, criminal liability does not attach unless the person has an intent to defraud. If someone put a raw T206 into a Topps holder years ago for their personal collection, and then sold it a decade later having forgotten that they didn't pull it straight from the product, that would not be criminal fraud.
Judges will sometimes tell juries that intent can rarely be proven by direct evidence; however, the Jury can look at all the circumstances of a person's actions to determine his intent. I think we all agree that the intent was pretty clear here.