I'm aware of all the A, B & M parties as others on the thread are. My understanding is that A wouldn't press charges against the brother so he gets off scott free. My thoughts are maybe M should have given the cards to someone to hold in escrow until A, B & M could figure something out (my undertstanding is another dealer is also between the brother and B).

Without holding the brother accountable, who's to say this won't happen again and put dealer D and collector K in the mix too? A's REAL beef should have been with his brother and sounds like nothing ever happened there unless I don't have all the story. In addition, looks like B, M and the other dealer between the brother and B should have somehow shared the misery three ways, maybe? I don't know.

Not sure how, especially at a card show, or how these guys buy groups of cards and collections of cards that you can fully insulate yourself from buying stolen merchandise. I know when I've sold stuff to dealers at shows no one's ever gotten my ID nor in few cases paid with a check. Seems like it's a perfect situation for moving stolen goods..........a shame for all in the loop really. I'm sure B has lost a LOT of business based on their actions as well.

Tom, how can you say B has lost a lot of business when most of us don't know who B is?

For those of you in the know, good for you. For the rest of us it's caveat emptor.

Then we trade contact info and you file a police report.

I would think that the dealer once confronted with an officer questioning why said dealer is buying/selling stolen items (fencing?) at a show he might be more agreeable to refunding the purchase and giving the card back to you. He can then file is own report and insurance claim against the thief if he knows who it is..

Otherwise might be an embarrassing situation among a crowd of his peers at the show, endless gossip and a possible starring role on a new net54 thread.

If I had to give over the item, I would get a receipt from the officer and if a credit card purchase call the card company and cancel the sale. If cash I would not let it go and follow through the process as I am not going to take the hit as all I did was buy an item from a dealer who presented it as conveyable title...

As I said - I will post the name of the dealer IF
 

my friend gives me permission to do it. If he doesn't, then I would point out that there are ways for smart people to find these things out - I can't tell you myself, but many other people do know...

The insurer who pays out typically has a subrogation right--it steps into the shoes of the insured for purposes of pursuing the person who caused the damage. Most personal articles policies also have language expressly transferring rights to damaged or recovered items to the insurer if payment is made to the insured on the policy.

I have no compunctions about naming the dealer, except I can't recall his name. I know he sets up at the National and has a wife who is very visible as part of the business. She is usually at the table over-dressed for the occasion, which in the case of a card show means she is usually wearing female clothing without visible scars, tattoos or a fanny pack.

As for the case itself, I see it this way:

I don't believe in 'moral' when it comes to commerce: there is legal and illegal.

Virtually no jurisdiction allows a thief to pass good title to a stolen object (there are a few bona fide purchaser laws in Texas for example that might allow it in certain circumstances, but this all went down in states that aren't run by moonbats). Doesn't matter how remote or how many times it is resold, title to the card is no good and the actual owner can recover it. Think of it this way: I steal the Mona Lisa and sell it to you and you can resell it a hundred times to a hundred different purchasers...doesn't mean the end buyer owns it because I never owned it; the lady goes back to Paris if the French authorities come a knocking. So, M never acquired good title to the cards because the dealer never had title to them because he purchased from a thief. The actual owner has the right to go into court and demand that M return his cards or pay the value of them. IMO, M did the right thing but he also did the thing that any decent attorney would have told him was the thing he would be compelled to do if push came to shove. M has a right against the dealer (what the heck is his name?) for what Peter already alluded to--breach of an implied warranty of good title to the merch. The dealer has the right to sue A's junkie brother for the cost he is out. A also can sue the brother and perhaps the grandparents for allowing the known junkie-criminal access to the cards in the first place.

I don't know the people and the details of this story, but just realize that normal and legal practice is to give refund to a person who was the direct buyer. Period. With stolen items and a chain of ownership, refund/return is given down the line of owners. It is very problematic giving refund to someone who wasn't your buyer-- especially if you don't know them. At the very least, there had better be good proof that the items were stolen.

In other cases, I find it problematic when the people on hobby boards criticize a big auction house or dealer refuses to refund years later to someone who never bought the item from them. If the hobby expects this and does not expect the refundee to provide significant proof the items were stolen and of the chain of ownership, the auctioneer or dealer could theoretically be giving out refunds to multiple people on one item. I've heard a big auction house say "I've never sold anything to this person and have never met him. Why should I be handing him over money?"-- which is a reasonable (and legally correct) argument.

As mentioned, A's main beef and source of getting money back is with his brother. And, at the very least, if he expects money back from the third or whatever generation buyer, he'd better have insurance claim papers or police report to prove the items were stolen.

If the parties want to cut a deal and do things differently because they think that's the right thing to do, that is fine and acceptable, but legally M never owed refund directly to A. That's not to say A does not get a refund or the cards back, but this is not the way the law says it is to be done. Judges often say (to the effect) "You have a legitimate case, but you've sued the wrong person."

When the police or the feds recover stolen property from its current owner, innocent or not, they don't say to the current owner, please go return the item to the person you bought it from and get a refund. They take it.

And do (or should) list that downstream buyer as an additional victim

And if I learn who B is, he'll lose my business as well