Found cash - honesty?

What would you do? Think how much work you'd have to do to earn that much money.
About £60,000 has been found floating in a Lincolnshire waterway
formatting link
Reply to
Gefreiter Krueger
wrote:
I would guess that large a sum of cash got there owing to a crime being committed. I can't think it could be someone with a hole in their pocket ;-) I would report it to the Police.
However my general rule for finding small sums of cash is, if I know who lost it, return it to them. Otherwise I would keep it with a clear conscience[1].
[1] I believe the chances of it being returned to it's rightful owner is negligible.
Reply to
Mark
I wouldn't, mainly BECAUSE it's not someone's personal cash. But I'd spend it carefully and gradually.
Agreed.
Reply to
Gefreiter Krueger
wrote:
Even if it would severly hamper a criminal investigation? It's possible the notes would be traceable or marked so you may have the criminals and the Police after you.
>> However my general rule for finding small sums of cash is, if I know >> who lost it, return it to them. Otherwise I would keep it with a >> clear conscience[1]. >> >> [1] I believe the chances of it being returned to it's rightful owner >> is negligible. > >Agreed.
Reply to
Mark
None of my concern. Probably just police after drugs, and I don't believe drugs should be illegal.
That's why I'd spend it carefully and gradually.
Reply to
Gefreiter Krueger

What would you do? Think how much work you'd have to do to earn that much money.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Buy a house in 1960
wait
tim
Reply to
tim......
wrote:
I don't see why it should be subject to a court forfeiture order.
The police should attempt to return it to it's rightful owner, but if they are unable to do so and it remains unclaimed after a reasonable period of time the finder should be allowed to keep it.
Chris
Reply to
Chris Blunt

because it looks liks dodgy money
On current form the PTB will go for seizure under POCA (and almost certainly win)
tim
Reply to
tim......
wrote:
Then the police can investigate, and if there is evidence that the money has come from the proceeds of crime it can be seized. As it is, there is no reason to believe that any crime has been committed.
If, after the police have completed their investigations, there is no evidence that the money has come from any wrongdoing, and nobody has claimed the money then the finder should be allowed to keep it. If it is not dealt with in that way there is never any incentive for anyone to report anything they might find.
Chris
Reply to
Chris Blunt

you may think that is the test the courts will apply
it is not
They will ask. "Is there a legitimate reason why this money was there"
answer no
It must be the proceeds of a crime then. Money seized
There is already an instance of this (but I couldn't find a link)
tim
Reply to
tim......
wrote:
But we don't know that it was discarded. It might have become accidentally lost in some way. Even if it was discarded it might not have been discarded by it's rightful owner.
That's why I think the police should be given every opportunity to find out who the real owner is and reunite it with him. If they fail to so after making all reasonable efforts then the finder should be allowed to keep it.
Chris
Reply to
Chris Blunt
wrote:
Perhaps you can show specifically where in the Proceeds of Crime Act such an assumption can be made. Bear in mind that the finder has no criminal record and cannot be shown to have been living a criminal lifestyle.
As for the money itself, if there is no reason to link it with any crime then under what legislation can it simply be assumed that it is the proceeds of a crime?
Chris
Reply to
Chris Blunt

you'll have to ask the particular judge who came to that decision
As I have said , I have tried to find it but failed, but I assure that it happened (recently)
The finder is irrelevant to the decision about whether the original funds are the proceeds of crime. It is the status of the (unknown) losing party that is considered.
Proceeds of crime do not need to be linked to a specific crime
They just need to be some sum of money shown (on some probability - don't know what) to be owned by a criminal, in excess of the amount that the criminal can prove that they reasonably obtained legitimately
tim
Reply to
tim......
wrote:
You really should read the Proceeds of Crime Act, because nothing that you refer to above is contained within that Act.
If you look at the text of that law it is clear that a prosecution can only be brought against someone with a criminal background or one who can be show to have lived a criminal lifestyle. In the case we are talking about there is no suggestion that the finder was anything other than an ordinary innocent person who happened to find the money in a river.
Also, there is nothing in the Act that says that money found in that way can be assumed to be the proceeds of a crime.
Chris
Reply to
Chris Blunt
wrote:
--snip--
I find it hard to accept that anyone would discard £60K in cash. Surely it must have been lost or stolen?
>That's why I think the police should be given every opportunity to >find out who the real owner is and reunite it with him. If they fail >to so after making all reasonable efforts then the finder should be >allowed to keep it.
Reply to
Mark

I'm only telling what happened when a recent case came to court
if you think it is wrong you fund the appeal
tim
Reply to
tim......

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.