Amazon isn't a pawn shop. They have a lot of choice when it comes to dealing with known businesses.
The more pressure they receive from the public and regulators to put a stop to those dastardly shoplifters, the more room Nike has to stop people from selling Nike shoes without a badge of certification from Nike.
It's mind boggling that folks are defending the ability to sell stolen goods, while wanting to harshly punish petty theft.
I’m not seeing anyone defending selling stolen goods just saying it’s nearly impossible to tell where the goods come from.
Product gets refused for various reasons and the trucking companies aren’t really in the business of selling goods so they just get rid of it. I’ve seen them refuse a whole pallet because one box was run into by a forklift before.
Sometimes they tell you where to take it, sometimes they tell you to just get rid of it (usually only if it’s a couple cases) and if it’s not something you particularly want you just find some random person who does want it or a dumpster.
Not to mention all the other cases people have explained in this thread.
I am also not denying that Amazon and eBay can operate as easy targets to fence stolen goods. What I am suggesting is that demanding Amazon "do something" about goods that fell off the back of a truck essentially means that any seller who doesn't get an Official Licensed Dealer badge or equivalent from a name brand company cannot do business on the internet.
The only way to combat this from Amazon's side is to ban all sales not authorized by the original manufacturer. There's no way for them to tell on their end whether goods were legitimately purchased or not, and any system used to track these sellers or prevent them from operating would give big brands a "delete" button on sales of their products worldwide.
As someone who is not a fan of software licensing for physical goods, this terrifies me, and bringing that regulatory environment as a response when we aren't willing to prosecute people for these crimes seems a bit much.
Your suggestion would generally be incorrect. Prosecutors in _some_ jurisdictions are choosing not to prosecute petty theft, but when organized crime cases are brought to them, they are prosecuting them.
Police, however, have done a poor job of investigating these crime rings, and in some cases have chosen not to make arrests to push a political agenda.
More enforcement against petty theft won't stop the organized crime problem.
You're going to an extreme on how to stop the illegal sales. Amazon could, for instance, stop allowing sales from any company that has fenced illegal goods through them. They could only allow well established businesses that have existed for x years to sell, or heavily inspect companies younger than x years. They could get lists of well-known resellers from manufacturers and heavily inspect businesses not on those lists.
You seem to have a weird position that Amazon is some innocent player in this exchange -- they are making money from every one of these illicit sales. They enjoy benefit from looking the other way -- its not that there are no processes that can halt or greatly reduce the problem.
Theft is prosecuted ffs, the issue is that it has become so lucrative (because of the easy way to convert the stolen items to money via amazon/ebay) that the system is being flooded by people stealing. In no reality can you catch 100% of shoplifters, but there is a reality where you make both sides of the act more costly with less reward (high chance of getting cought and prosecuted + hard to gain value from the goods).
No it isn’t. That’s a pretty basic part of living in a country with rule of law.
>calling people progressive to enforce that is a bit strange
Indeed, it’s strictly regressive.
This is an incorrect framing: the law is that companies must know their suppliers, at least to the extent that they can demonstrate good faith compliance with laws around stolen, counterfeit, smuggled, etc. goods.
Given that Amazon has repeatedly been supplied evidence of fencing on its platform, it would be difficult to accept a defense from ignorance.
> Given that Amazon has repeatedly been supplied evidence of fencing on its platform, it would be difficult to accept a defense from ignorance
That doesn’t make any sense whatsoever, Amazon being generally aware that there is fencing activity happening on their platform does not make Amazon liable.
Every US state that I'm aware of makes it a crime to knowingly receive stolen property. Most additionally make it a crime to re-sell stolen property. On top of that, it's a Federal crime if the stolen property crosses state borders.
Here, for example, are NY's statutes on stolen property: Penal Law Ss. 165.40 through 165.65[1] (you'll need to navigate on that page to each section). In particular:
* It is not a sufficient defense to claim that the original thief has not been convicted or identified: § 165.50, bullet 1.
* Possession of stolen property encompasses the intent to sell that property: § 165.55, bullet 1.
> Amazon being generally aware that there is fencing activity happening on their platform does not make Amazon liable.
This implies passivity, when the relationship is an active one. If Amazon was an unstructured marketplace with individual business relationships between buyers and (potentially criminal) sellers, this argument might work. But that's not what FBA is, and it's not how these products are sold (you aren't buying Honest Abe's Big Brand Shampoo, you're buying Amazon-fulfilled Big Brand Shampoo).
[1]: https://casetext.com/statute/consolidated-laws-of-new-york/c...
For mens rea you’d need to know that the specific property you are receiving is stolen. Not that some of the amazon-scale quantities of property you’re receiving is inherently going to be stolen.
> This implies passivity, when the relationship is an active one
Doesn’t matter, Amazon still isn’t aware.
"We run such a large and haphazard business that we inevitably do a little crime" is textbook culpability via negligence.
Edit: And, to be absolutely clear, I do not believe for one moment that it isn't within Amazon's technical capabilities to detect at least some percentage of likely stolen goods on their site. This is merely the weakest possible argument for responsibility on their part.
There’s no amount of vetting that could solve this.
> "We run such a large and haphazard business that we inevitably do a little crime" is textbook culpability via negligence
Accepting goods for sale from third parties is not negligent.
I said exactly as much in my first comment.
Edit: This is at least the second time you've minimized an important piece of context: the problem is that they're accepting stolen goods, with multiple municipalities repeatedly warning them about it. Treating that as a "scale" issue doesn't wave the crime away, any more than throughput at a meatpacking factory would be a defense for the occasional employee being caught in the slaughter line.
Again, rule of law. Reasonable effort is to do nothing unless they have information that would make a reasonable person believe that the specific goods were stolen.
There’s no expectation that Amazon would investigate the providence of the goods they receive.
> Edit: This is at least the second time you've minimized an important piece of context: the problem is that they're accepting stolen goods, with multiple municipalities repeatedly warning them about it.
No, I’m not. Amazon receives unimaginable amounts of goods, of which only a vanishingly small fraction is stolen goods.
> Treating that as a "scale" issue doesn't wave the crime away, any more than throughput at a meatpacking factory would be a defense for the occasional employee being caught in the slaughter line.
Are you serious? Surely the odds of an employee ever getting caught in the slaughter line must be greater than zero?
Surely you understand that if we were to infinitely scale the meatpacking factory, we’d be essentially guaranteed to see employees get chopped up.
This simply does not matter in the eyes of the law. What matters is receiving stolen goods, period. The degree to which they do will solely determine the degree of the statute applied.
I think I'm just repeating myself at this point, so this will be the last time: there are different standards for culpability, and each exists for a reason. Accidents happen all the time, and we don't generally refer them for criminal prosecution unless they meet a standard of intentionality, knowledge, recklessness, or criminal negligence.
To use the slaughterhouse example again: nobody expects a slaughterhouse to be perfectly safe. However, we do expect a slaughterhouse to not recklessly or negligently expose its employees to danger. Nobody expects Amazon to perfectly avoid sales of stolen goods. However, we do expect them to pursue reports of stolen goods made by victims and investigating DAs.
Not saying warnings don't happen when probable cause exists to prosecute a crime, but I think we're missing the content of these warnings before we get ahead of ourselves about what to think about them.
Besides, providing a warning actually helps the prosecution establish the crime: it’s much easier to argue negligence or recklessness if they can produce a history of repeatedly giving the company an opportunity to fix identified issues.
Right, pawn shops are held to a higher standard. They have a relationship with the local police and are made to keep records. Amazon is a better fence than your average pawn shop.
You are taking a pretty bit straw man here -- is your claim that there is no way to enforce procedures to curb stolen goods while selling other goods? I think every other seller that has been used as a fence in history would beg to differ -- just go to your local pawn shop.
Completely pointless idea.
Regulating away legitimate secondary markets to sell on leaves us all paying higher prices. If brands and retailers believe it’s really retail theft causing all of this I invite them to track their goods better and run sting operations. I guarantee this type of money is going out the side door a truckload at a time, not the front door stuffed into someone’s shirt.
But the “progressive prosecutor problem” is a made up lie. Even in San Francisco where a DA recall vote actually succeeded it was obvious (and immediately proven[0]) that SFPD were actually just refusing to respond to calls:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/brooke-jenkins-sf-...
Heavy handed regulation always sounds better in hypothetical perfect knowledge scenarios, but kind of sucks for everyone in the real world.
And that simply gets you an application. No guarantee of being picked.
I have zero problems with a business having to prove - to whatever degree - they are legit.
Finance institutions have a KYC thing. Maybe Amazon needs a KYTrader.
There's tons of stuff on Amazon that goes for more than retail, and people buy it for the delivery convenience. And there's nothing wrong with that.