Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 10:15:09 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Exchange accidentally sent 512 bitcoins after coding error  (Read 32352 times)
Vladimir
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


-


View Profile
September 03, 2011, 11:47:11 AM
 #261

I suppose someone now shall edit that wiki and replace "owns" by "has in possession" , not that it makes any difference.



-
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481192109
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481192109

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481192109
Reply with quote  #2

1481192109
Report to moderator
1481192109
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481192109

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481192109
Reply with quote  #2

1481192109
Report to moderator
1481192109
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481192109

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481192109
Reply with quote  #2

1481192109
Report to moderator
MiningBuddy
Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1058


฿itcoin ฿itcoin ฿itcoin


View Profile
September 03, 2011, 11:47:48 AM
 #262

Ben, having been SENT the coins, whether mistakenly or not, now owns them. The network was informed of the transfer of ownership by phantomcircuit and then confirmed the transaction by including it's data in the blockchain.

What about this?
Quote
164.065 Theft of lost, mislaid property. A person who comes into control of property of another that the person knows or has good reason to know to have been lost, mislaid or delivered under a mistake as to the nature or amount of the property or the identity of the recipient, commits theft if, with intent to deprive the owner thereof, the person fails to take reasonable measures to restore the property to the owner. [1971 c.743 §126]

geebus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 258



View Profile WWW
September 03, 2011, 11:52:01 AM
 #263

Ben, having been SENT the coins, whether mistakenly or not, now owns them.

Apply your reasoning to credit card chargebacks. An FAQ does not trump law, no matter the language used. The only deciding factor is whether the transaction was intended or not.


Incorrect Sir. You are not participating in a federally or internationally regulated credit system. You are participating in Bitcoin. A virtual currency that holds no value in the real world beyond that which is put on it by the members of the community that use it.

Bitcoin is no further subject to federal regulation, law, or consumer protection than something like WoW gold.
From the perspective of the United States Supreme Court, it is a game. Virtual. Not real.

The rules of the game state that transactions go one way and once it's sent, you no longer own it and the recipient now does.

If you don't like the rules, go play a different game.

Feel like donating to me? BTC Address: 14eUVSgBSzLpHXGAfbN9BojXTWvTb91SHJ
geebus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 258



View Profile WWW
September 03, 2011, 11:53:25 AM
 #264

Ben, having been SENT the coins, whether mistakenly or not, now owns them. The network was informed of the transfer of ownership by phantomcircuit and then confirmed the transaction by including it's data in the blockchain.

What about this?
Quote
164.065 Theft of lost, mislaid property. A person who comes into control of property of another that the person knows or has good reason to know to have been lost, mislaid or delivered under a mistake as to the nature or amount of the property or the identity of the recipient, commits theft if, with intent to deprive the owner thereof, the person fails to take reasonable measures to restore the property to the owner. [1971 c.743 §126]

Once again, it assumes the property coming into the possession of the recipient still belongs to the sender and was sent mistakenly.

In the world of Bitcoin, once it leaves your wallet, you don't own it anymore. Mistakenly transferred or not, you transfer ownership.

Feel like donating to me? BTC Address: 14eUVSgBSzLpHXGAfbN9BojXTWvTb91SHJ
indio007
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


View Profile
September 03, 2011, 11:55:25 AM
 #265

I suggest everyone stop arguing with the idiots on here that are justifying the illegal acts. I have heard some much absolute ignorant BS come out , it' numbing my brain. They are literally puling shit out of their ass.

Ownership is a conclusion of law . The wiki has no authority to make any conclusion as to ownership that is binding. It was written in a general sense.

Bitcoin was released under license. Taking an not returning someones coins is depriving them of access to the network that they otherwise would have. The benefit of a license is a property right . Get it through your thick skulls. All the mental and verbal gymnastics in the world are not going to change that.

I bet 100 BTC this guy has a legally enforceable right in Oregon to recover his right of access or it's worth in money.

I've never seen a forum which had some of the dumbest and smartest people I've ever seen  simultaneously.

Please, go read a legal book before speaking. This isn't even a difficult case to adjudicate.
defxor
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 530


View Profile
September 03, 2011, 11:56:27 AM
 #266

You are not participating in a federally or internationally regulated credit system.

Irrelevant.

Quote
holds no value in the real world beyond that which is put on it by the members of the community that use it.

Like gold.

Quote
Bitcoin is no further subject to federal regulation, law, or consumer protection than something like WoW gold.

Theft of virtual items has been successfully prosecuted all over the world.

See, I tend to care about what's actually true instead of going on a rambling spree. You should try it.
mikegogulski
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 360



View Profile WWW
September 03, 2011, 12:14:22 PM
 #267

I bet 100 BTC this guy has a legally enforceable right in Oregon to recover his right of access or it's worth in money.

I appreciate the spirit, but still...

If that wager can be defined as:

---
I will pay you 100 BTC,
 if and when any Oregon court issues a judgment stipulating that
  BenDavis (whoever that is, legally in Oregon) is ordered to return the amount of Bitcoins received (call it 511 +/- 5%), or
  BenDavis is ordered pay plaintiff the market value (+/- 5%) at any given point in time of the Bitcoins received, or
  BenDavis is ordered to restore or otherwise facilitate the recovery of the "right of access" you mention here;
 provided such judgment is posted or referenced here, and
 the period of leave to file an appeal against the judgment has expired; BUT

On the other side, you will pay me 100 BTC,
 if and when there is a final disposition of an Oregon cause of legal action brought against BenDavis in this matter, and
 if that disposition does not include any of the three substantive orders specified above; BUT

That a transfer of this case to a US Federal court or other court outside of Oregon shall null the wager, AND
That the only monetary or performance sums considered for purposes of determining the winner of the wager shall be the Bitcoins in question or their equivalent in other currency and not any sums related to service of process, court fees, fines, trial costs, legal fees, etc.
---

Then I'll take that wager.

FREE ROSS ULBRICHT, allegedly one of the Dread Pirates Roberts of the Silk Road
geebus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 258



View Profile WWW
September 03, 2011, 12:27:02 PM
 #268

You are not participating in a federally or internationally regulated credit system.

Irrelevant.

Quote
holds no value in the real world beyond that which is put on it by the members of the community that use it.

Like gold.

Quote
Bitcoin is no further subject to federal regulation, law, or consumer protection than something like WoW gold.

Theft of virtual items has been successfully prosecuted all over the world.

See, I tend to care about what's actually true instead of going on a rambling spree. You should try it.


The only two courts in the world that have set any legal precedence in regards to virtual items or currencies holding real-world monetary value are the Dutch, and South Korean courts. Neither of which either of the two individuals involved are subject to the jurisdiction of.

Gold holds value in the real-world because it's a precious metal that is the backing of, or used to be the backing for, every currency on the planet that was created for an established economy. However, gold is not legal currency in the United States either, save for the state of Utah, which only recently passed legislation to identify it as legal tender.

The fact that neither party is participating in a recognized monetary system with binding laws, rules, and regulations is perfectly relevant to this situation. I urge you to show me where US federal courts (since this is international, and therefore a federal, not state matter) shows that virtual currencies of any form hold real-world value.

Likewise, I urge you to show any example that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that once you transfer ownership of an item (tangible or intangible) to another party, it is illegal for them to not give it back once demanded.

The point everyone (with the exception of a few) seems to be missing here is that phantomcircuit no longer owns them. BenDavis is an asshole for not sending them back, I will agree wholeheartedly, but he is not required to do so under any law. He owned the coins the second they were sent to him.

At most, you could try to claim that the Bitcoins he received were a good or service offered by the company (Intersango) and that the company requested a recall on the product. However, under US laws regarding consumer rights of recall and revocation, the consumer has the right to choose not to return a product that has been recalled.

Feel like donating to me? BTC Address: 14eUVSgBSzLpHXGAfbN9BojXTWvTb91SHJ
defxor
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 530


View Profile
September 03, 2011, 12:39:49 PM
 #269

The only two courts in the world that have set any legal precedence in regards to virtual items or currencies holding real-world monetary value are the Dutch, and South Korean courts. Neither of which either of the two individuals involved are subject to the jurisdiction of.

Irrelevant, laws regarding goods are well equalized thanks to global trade agreements. To claim that South Korean, Dutch, Finnish etc judicial systems would be outliers compared to the US the burden of proof would be on you.

Quote
“The court effectively found that, even though virtual currency isn’t real and is infinite in supply, it still can deserve legal protection in the same way as real world currency,”
(UK - http://www.allfacebook.com/hacker-steals-12-million-in-zynga-poker-chips-2011-02)

Quote
Gold holds value in the real-world because it's a precious metal that is the backing of, or used to be the backing for, every currency on the planet that was created for an established economy.

I can only assume you believe this yourself, but it's funny nonetheless. No, gold does not hold value for such a reason, and it's easily proven by me asking you same question but exchanging gold for silver, copper, platinum, music songs, movies etc.

Quote
I urge you to show me where US federal courts (since this is international, and therefore a federal, not state matter) shows that virtual currencies of any form hold real-world value.

"Currency" is irrelevant, you can treat it as any virtual thing of value. Do you claim digital objects hold no value in the US, and if you think about that for a second or two, how easily do you think I can show you numerous examples?

Quote
Likewise, I urge you to show any example that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that once you transfer ownership of an item (tangible or intangible) to another party, it is illegal for them to not give it back once demanded.

Wording in an FAQ entry does not trump law. Without intention to change ownership the ownership did not change hands.

The real question here is why you believe your personal imagination is of interest to us. Do note that you provide absolutely no information of value beyond your own ramblings.
johnj
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
September 03, 2011, 12:41:20 PM
 #270


Likewise, I urge you to show any example that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that once you transfer ownership of an item (tangible or intangible) to another party, it is illegal for them to not give it back once demanded.





Quote

"I'll quote the relevant section (164.015):
Quote
     (2) Commits theft of property lost, mislaid or delivered by mistake as provided in ORS 164.065;"



1AeW7QK59HvEJwiyMztFH1ubWPSLLKx5ym
TradeHill Referral TH-R120549
joulesbeef
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


moOo


View Profile
September 03, 2011, 12:48:11 PM
 #271

I wonder if scumbag davis thinks he should pay the bill for his car repairs when someone else crashes into him, or who he try to collect on their on their insurance. I suepect he would make an insurance claim.

This baffles me, he gets money through an accident and thinks it is a windfall and yet if he lost money through and accident, he would sue.

mooo for rent
rannici
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 38


View Profile
September 03, 2011, 01:22:13 PM
 #272

i have a business selling specialty socks that i, and my family knit ourselves.
i built a website for selling these socks to people who recognize the inherent comfort and value of such socks.

one day, i accidentally mail 500 socks to a registered buyer on the website.
the socks, unlike gold, are not a 'precious metal', and are not considered a 'currency' by any nation on the planet.
yet they do have a value to my family and i, as it took thread to make, and an investment of our time.
.. therefore, i go ahead and verify that the buyer did indeed receive the amount of socks in question,
and cordially request that the buyer help resolve this mistake amicably.
to which, they become hostile, citing 'finders-keepers'.

i'm not a legal expert,
but i've seen stupider cases on judge judy.
i believe i can sue, since, the original buyer acknowledged the mistake, and kept the product regardless.
to think otherwise is stupidly naive.

...
...

also, the argument that bitcoins are worth nothing is by its nature, flawed,
as, like knitting socks,
there are electrical costs, and an investment of time, required to mine a single bitcoin.
it is this inherent value, that you would be potentially suing for.
..
you would essentially be saying 'pay me the amount in electricity that it would cost to mine another 512 bitcoins, and compensate me for my time', or give back the coins.
Vladimir
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


-


View Profile
September 03, 2011, 01:31:35 PM
 #273

rannici, surely you can sue and you should

I have (dis?)similar example. I have recently ordered some rather expensive cooling device, they delivered two by mistake, than they called and asked if they delivered two to me, on which I said yes, they asked to have one back, we arranged time for them to come and pick it up. Everyone is happy. That's how it should be handled by normal people with at least a modicum of common sense.



-
Tomatocage
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1526

brb keeping up with the Kardashians


View Profile
September 03, 2011, 02:19:46 PM
 #274

From already public informations, here's information that I found:

aliases: BatumKaboom7, BenDavis (IRC), BenDavis5037, bennydavis5, Bills_Fan_5030, Dante_Cunningham7, DLowDAOG4, neBo5033, Patty_Mills7, Tyler_Hansborough7
location: Newberg1, Oregon, US (From IRC: 50-39-204-35.bvtn.or.frontiernet.net (Portland, Oregon))
age: 301,6 (born: 9/11/1980)8,12

accounts:
aim: neBo50311,13
email: enDavis503@GMail.com13
msn: davissaveus@live.com11
myspace: http://myspace.com/bennydavis5,13
sidekick: BenDavis503@TMail.com13

pictures:
mirror http://c2sopublic.reverbnation.com/Photo/1956755/image/l_3b4781ab11aa45e29c4788a148719dcf_1266951297.jpg2
mirror http://www.parentingforums.org/customavatars/avatar1470_1.gif9
mirror http://nyc3img.soundclick.com/21/imgPages/9/2/2560249_298878.jpg?version=13810

sources:
0 http://www.footballsfuture.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=10987402#10987402 (Google search BenDavis Newberg Oregon)
1 http://www.footballsfuture.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=12173091 (Google search BenDavis Newberg Oregon)
2 http://www.reverbnation.com/bendavisbeats503 (Google search BenDavis Newberg Oregon -"Bendavis, MO" -"Bendavis, Missouri" -Missouri)
3 http://www.bitcoinpool.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=767
4 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=40934.msg500160#msg500160
5 http://www.softwaretipsandtricks.com/forum/members/nebo503.html (Google search neBo503)
6 http://www.xfire.com/profile/nebo503/ (Google search neBo503)
7 http://sportstwo.com/threads/146731-I-am-29-today.?p=2112786&viewfull=1#post2112786 (Google search neBo503 birthday)
8 http://sportstwo.com/threads/146731-I-am-29-today. (Google search neBo503 birthday)
9 Google Images search BenDavis503
10 http://www.soundclick.com/members/default.cfm?member=bendavis503 (Google search BenDavis503)
11 http://sportstwo.com/threads/152296-Poster-BenDavis503-Threatens-to-Hack-My-PC?daysprune=-1 (Google search BenDavis503)
12 http://www.basketballforum.com/portland-trail-blazers/370367-heard-something-today-work-about-shane-battier-trade.html#post4929586 (Google search BenDavis503)
13 http://board.rapmusic.com/13254086-post1.html (Google search neBo503)

Please add the following, obtained through public information aggregation site:
Myspace: http://www.myspace.com/42020322
Twitter: http://myspace.com/benjohnson503

Employer: SAVANT CCA
111 SW 5TH AVE, STE 4090
PORTLAND,  OR  97204-3648
(503) 914-5584

THIS SPOT FOR RENT* | GPG ID: 4880D85C | 1% Escrow | 8% IPO/ICO Escrow services Temporarily Closed | Bitcointalk is the ONLY place where I use this name (No Skype/IRC/YIM/AIM/etc) | 13CsmTqGNwvFXb7tD9yFvJcEYCDTB8wQTS | Beware of these SCAM sites! | *Sponsored Link
bitconformist
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
September 03, 2011, 02:24:13 PM
 #275

I suggest everyone stop arguing with the idiots on here that are justifying the illegal acts. I have heard some much absolute ignorant BS come out , it' numbing my brain. They are literally puling shit out of their ass.

Ownership is a conclusion of law . The wiki has no authority to make any conclusion as to ownership that is binding. It was written in a general sense.

Bitcoin was released under license. Taking an not returning someones coins is depriving them of access to the network that they otherwise would have. The benefit of a license is a property right . Get it through your thick skulls. All the mental and verbal gymnastics in the world are not going to change that.

I bet 100 BTC this guy has a legally enforceable right in Oregon to recover his right of access or it's worth in money.

I've never seen a forum which had some of the dumbest and smartest people I've ever seen  simultaneously.

Please, go read a legal book before speaking. This isn't even a difficult case to adjudicate.
Good lord. You're calling other people stupid but you come across as borderline illiterate.
CoinMan
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 104



View Profile
September 03, 2011, 04:04:18 PM
 #276

I'd give them back.  This year sure has seen the quality of this community go right down the shitter..but I digress.

CoinMan

My Bitcoin Identity
Bitcoin: 183DFFQXR4xCyseBXzmh3XWc22izDWE5Dw
indio007
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


View Profile
September 03, 2011, 04:09:09 PM
 #277

I bet 100 BTC this guy has a legally enforceable right in Oregon to recover his right of access or it's worth in money.

I appreciate the spirit, but still...

If that wager can be defined as:

---
I will pay you 100 BTC,
 if and when any Oregon court issues a judgment stipulating that
  BenDavis (whoever that is, legally in Oregon) is ordered to return the amount of Bitcoins received (call it 511 +/- 5%), or
  BenDavis is ordered pay plaintiff the market value (+/- 5%) at any given point in time of the Bitcoins received, or
  BenDavis is ordered to restore or otherwise facilitate the recovery of the "right of access" you mention here;
 provided such judgment is posted or referenced here, and
 the period of leave to file an appeal against the judgment has expired; BUT

On the other side, you will pay me 100 BTC,
 if and when there is a final disposition of an Oregon cause of legal action brought against BenDavis in this matter, and
 if that disposition does not include any of the three substantive orders specified above; BUT

That a transfer of this case to a US Federal court or other court outside of Oregon shall null the wager, AND
That the only monetary or performance sums considered for purposes of determining the winner of the wager shall be the Bitcoins in question or their equivalent in other currency and not any sums related to service of process, court fees, fines, trial costs, legal fees, etc.
---

Then I'll take that wager.

I'm  not wagering on the outcome of a case. Way to add various terms and conditions. Roll Eyes
Like I said, I will wager on whether or not he has a legally enforceable right to recover what was lost or it's monetary equivalent in the state of Oregon.  To win on my part, all the claim has to do is to survive a demurrer, if he loses a demurrer, I lose.

A demurrer is challenge about the law and does not touch the facts. It's a suckers bet because I fairly certain his lawyer won't demurrer in the first place because it's a sure loser.
indio007
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


View Profile
September 03, 2011, 04:17:00 PM
 #278

I suggest everyone stop arguing with the idiots on here that are justifying the illegal acts. I have heard some much absolute ignorant BS come out , it' numbing my brain. They are literally puling shit out of their ass.

Ownership is a conclusion of law . The wiki has no authority to make any conclusion as to ownership that is binding. It was written in a general sense.

Bitcoin was released under license. Taking an not returning someones coins is depriving them of access to the network that they otherwise would have. The benefit of a license is a property right . Get it through your thick skulls. All the mental and verbal gymnastics in the world are not going to change that.

I bet 100 BTC this guy has a legally enforceable right in Oregon to recover his right of access or it's worth in money.

I've never seen a forum which had some of the dumbest and smartest people I've ever seen  simultaneously.

Please, go read a legal book before speaking. This isn't even a difficult case to adjudicate.
Good lord. You're calling other people stupid but you come across as borderline illiterate.

I shouldn't have called anyone stupid. I should have used the word ignorant. As to your illiterate comment .... pfftt....  it's called functionally illiterate.
mizerydearia
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574



View Profile
September 03, 2011, 05:36:12 PM
 #279

BenDavis's debt should be no more than 98% of the value at time of transfer, with any transaction/conversion fees in BenDavis's favor.

If this were the case, perhaps it would be wise to use an exchange that had a 99.9% transaction/conversion fee.
indio007
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


View Profile
September 03, 2011, 05:37:58 PM
 #280

You all might wanna chew on this especially the thief.
Popular law library, Putney... By Albert Hutchinson Putney

Quote
Section 76. Delivered By Mistake.
Where the owner of money or property delivers it to another by mistake and that person, knowing the mistake at the time he receives it, conceals the mistake intending at the time to appropriate it to his own use, he is guilty of larceny. Thus for example, when a bank by mistake handed the accused five hundred dollars more than his check called for, and the accused at the time he received the money
"Johnson vs. People, 113 111., 103. Hughes, Cr. Law, Sec. 402.
Section 77. Finding Goods And Appropriating.
So if one finds the goods of the owner in the highway or elsewhere, containing marks which identify the owner, and the one finding them converts the same to his own use with criminal intent, he is guilty of larceny; but otherwise if there be no marks to identify the owner.29
Section 80. Value Of The Property Taken.
The article or thing taken must be of some value to make it the subject of larceny and the value must be alleged and proven. It is especially necessary to prove the value of the property stolen for the purpose of determining whether the offense is grand or petit larceny; for grand larceny is a felony and petit larceny a misdemeanor.
But the value of several articles stolen at different times by distinct acts, although from the same person, cannot be added together to make the offense grand larceny.34
The value of an article or thing is its market value, and not what it may be worth to the owner.

Quote
A treatise on the law of crimes, Volume 2 By William Lawrence Clark, William Lawrence Marshall[/i]
In several cases, for example, it has been held that, when money or property is delivered to a person by mistake, the taking is not complete, and he does not acquire possession, until he discovers the mistake, and that he is guilty of larceny if he then forms and carries out an intent to appropriate the property or money to his own use. Reg. v. Ashwell, 16 Cox, C. C. 1, Beale's Cas. 566; State v. Ducker, S Or. 394.  
 <---LAST CASE IS OREGON


State v. Woll, 668 P. 2d 610 - Wash: Court of Appeals, 2nd Div. 1983
Quote
The wrongful appropriation of property mistakenly delivered appears to have been considered larceny at common 565*565 law only if, upon receipt, the recipient knew that it was mistakenly delivered and at that time formed the intent to keep it.[5] However, State v. Olds, 39 Wn.2d 258, 235 P.2d 165 (1951) and State v. Heyes, 44 Wn.2d 579, 269 P.2d 577 (1954), construing Rem. Rev. Stat. § 2601(4) (the statutory forerunner of RCW 9A.56.020(1)(c)), distinguished this statutory offense from common law larceny.[6] In State v. Olds, supra, the court expressly held that, in order to sustain a conviction under Rem. Rev. Stat. § 2601(4), no evidence of original felonious intent was necessary. One noted authority interpreted State v. Olds, supra, as holding that Washington's statutory offense of wrongfully appropriating misdelivered property is distinguishable from common law larceny:

The wrongful withholding of property delivered by mistake, with knowledge of the mistake acquired subsequent to the receipt, may be punishable by statute under the name of larceny, but it is an offense distinct from common law larceny.
(Italics ours.) R. Perkins, Criminal Law 254 n. 76 (2d ed. 1969).

[2] Thus, the common law of larceny required proof that the defendant's intent to steal concurred with his mistaken receipt of the property,[7] whereas, under RCW 9A.56.020(1)(c) 566*566 the "intent to deprive" must exist at the time of the appropriation. In the case at bench, Woll was charged with having committed the crime on or about April 18, 1979. Thus, under the charge and under the trial court's instruction, the prosecution had to prove defendant's intent on the date he transferred the funds — not the date or dates on which he subsequently spent the money. Under Washington law, "[t]he gravamen of the offense is the appropriation of the property after having received it". (Italics ours.) State v. Heyes, 44 Wn.2d at 588.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!