|
|
此文章由 闲聊者 原创或转贴，不代表本站立场和观点，版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 闲聊者 所有！转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明，并保持内容完整
现在就不说武力啊，就说法理上抢来的东西倒过手也不能算合法交易吧？
In general, a transaction involving stolen goods is not a valid transaction in terms of passing ownership. A foundational principle of property law, known as nemo dat (nemo dat quod non habet), means that a thief cannot pass better title (ownership) to a buyer than they themselves possess.
Because a thief has no legal title, the person who buys stolen goods—even in good faith and without knowing they are stolen—does not become the legal owner.
Here is a breakdown of the legal and practical implications:
Ownership Rights: The original, lawful owner retains the right to recover their property from anyone in possession of it, often through a court process.
Good Faith Purchasers: If you unknowingly purchase stolen goods, you may lose both the item (when police seize it) and the money you paid, although you may have legal recourse to sue the seller.
Criminal Liability: Knowingly receiving, possessing, or disposing of stolen property is a criminal offence (often called "receiving stolen goods" or "handling stolen goods").
"Goods in Custody" Offences: Even if you did not know the goods were stolen, you can be charged with being in possession of goods "reasonably suspected of being stolen" if you cannot prove you obtained them lawfully.
Exceptions: Very narrow exceptions exist, such as when a person with "voidable title" (not a thief) sells to a good-faith purchaser before the transaction is voided, or in cases of specific mercantile agency laws.
Conclusion: A transaction involving stolen goods is generally invalid, as it cannot legally transfer ownership to a new buyer. |
|
写给刚刚出生的我 (2008-11-20) 猫球球 
楼主:dootbear
发表于 2026-2-10 10:13
