—————
WITHOUT a safe market for his ill-gotten property the avocation of the rogue would be unprofitable. The buying of stolen goods is therefore not a crime of recent origin, but dates back to the very beginning of thievery. It is really the root of the evil, but the suppression of receivers of stolen goods in the State of New York, owing to existing laws, has been made almost an impossibility. Receivers have their grades and classes. Some make it a business to purchase bonds, securities, diamonds or silks. The receiver in the habit of handling stolen paper, could not be induced to risk a speculation in bulky plunder. These offenders are extremely careful in their negotiations with professional rogues. They seem to place but little faith in the word of a thief, and are naturally suspicious of all persons with whom they have any dealings. After a large robbery the burglars do not, as is generally supposed, cart the plunder to the house or store of the receiver. Instead, they quietly remove it to a safe place of storage in some neighboring city or town. The wives of criminals undergoing imprisonment are invariably the custodians of loot. The burglars have confidence in these women, and so have the receivers. The booty is conveyed to their apartments in trunks and does not attract any attention. When it has been placed in charge of the wife of an imprisoned confederate, the “fence” is notified and samples of the goods furnished. Should the receiver desire an examination of the property he sends his trusted appraiser to look it over, and should it prove to be as represented, a settlement is effected and the trunks are reshipped to the rooms of another thief’s wife. The latter’s unlucky husband was perhaps a favorite with the receiver, and the woman is always a willing party to transactions of this sort. Receivers, while they rarely pay more than one-quarter of the value of the stolen article, run no risks. They never make a settlement with the thieves until the proceeds of the robbery have been removed a second time, and to a place the location of which the gang they are dealing with knows nothing about. There are two reasons why the purchaser is so careful. One is because he fears treachery at the hands of the robbers, and the other because he does not desire to incur any loss. In event of the stolen goods being seized in transit from the storage place of the thieves to that of the receiver, the loss falls upon the former. The reason why the rogues are kept in ignorance of the final hiding-place is to prevent them, should there be any bickering as to the price, from betraying the buyer. The simple testimony of the self-confessed thief that he sold the stolen goods to a certain person, would be of no value in a legal sense without the corroborative proof of the seizure of the plunder. On account of the receiver’s guarded manner of doing business this is never possible, and the moment that the goods come into his possession all tags and marks that would lead to their identification are removed and destroyed.
Under the cover of some legitimate business, receivers in the large cities are able to conduct their nefarious transactions without much danger of detection. To conceal their shady speculations they run a fancy goods or jewelry store, on apparently a square basis and in a business district. These are the class that purchase from shoplifters, pickpockets, and dishonest employes. To watch their patrons would be a task that would bear but little results. Persons known as professional criminals shun these places, and the men and women who sell the proceeds of their pilferings there are only petty thieves. While seemingly purchasing some article, they are really making a bargain for its sale, and never carry on their negotiations in the presence of a stranger. The goods bought under such conditions are never offered for sale in these places, but are disposed of to unscrupulous shopkeepers who delight in peddling them, and are all the time boasting of their honesty and, perhaps, quoting Scripture.
There are many people to be found in cities who are constantly on the lookout for bargains, and possess a fondness for other people’s property. To this class of receivers pickpockets and sneak thieves safely dispose of stolen watches and trinkets. The establishments of pawnbrokers, who advance loans on jewelry and clothing, are the places patronized by young rogues. Old rogues, by melting watch-cases, run but little chance of detection, and net quite a large profit by the sale of the metal to reputable firms. A smart receiver, who deals in stolen jewelry, as a rule makes it a habit after a purchase to reduce all small articles into metal, just as soon as bought. The most annoying class are the second-hand dealers, who buy and sell stolen wearing apparel. They invariably have friends in another city, so that as soon as plunder has been bought it is shipped away to be disposed of elsewhere.
All phases of crime excepting this one—the worst of all—are, in the State of New York, amply and clearly covered by the statutes. On more than one occasion the guilt of several persons, notorious as purchasers of the proceeds of robberies to the police and the public, has been morally certain; still, in a legal sense, it was impossible to secure their conviction, because the law seemed to especially protect them from punishment. Among the many things to make out a case upon which a conviction might be expected, it is necessary to establish the fact that the receiver knew that the property he had bought had been stolen or appropriated wrongfully. This clause is therefore a serious stumbling-block in the way of prosecution, and serves as a shield for the buyer of booty, no matter how notorious he or she may be. All indictments and trials in this section of the country must be framed and conducted in accordance with the provisions and requirements of the Penal Code. Chapter 550 applies to receivers of stolen goods, and this section of the law was doubtless intended to put a stop to the buying of what thieves call “swag;” but the peculiar construction of the statute has completely upset the intention of the law makers. The chapter mentioned is as follows:
“A person who buys or receives any stolen property or any property which has been wrongfully appropriated in such a manner as to constitute larceny according to this chapter, knowing the same to have been stolen or so dealt with, or who corruptly, for any money, property, reward or promise or agreement for the same conceals, withholds or aids in concealing or withholding any property, knowing the same to have been stolen or appropriated wrongfully in such a manner as to constitute larceny under the provisions of this chapter, if such misappropriation had been committed within the State, whether such property were so stolen or misappropriated within or without the State, is guilty of criminally receiving such property, and is punishable by imprisonment in a State prison for not more than five years or in a county jail for not more than six months, or by a fine of not more than two hundred and fifty dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment.”
The opinion of one of the leading prosecuting officers of New York City shows how difficult it is under the present law to establish the guilt of a receiver of stolen goods. What he has said on the subject, and the suggestions he has made, are interesting and important. They are as follows:
“The law requires proof of guilty knowledge—that is, it must be proven to the satisfaction of a jury that the party receiving the goods knew at the time of their receipt that they were stolen. Such guilty knowledge must be proved by facts and circumstances, and it is difficult to collect such facts and circumstances as will satisfy the jury beyond reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt.
“Even where the thief himself becomes a witness for the State, it is the practice of the courts to warn the jury that it is unsafe to deprive a man of his liberty upon the unsupported testimony of either a confessed or a convicted criminal.
“I am of the opinion that the law on this subject should be more stringent. It might, for instance, make it presumptive proof of guilt, sufficient, in the absence of explanation, to convict the defendant, that the goods were immediately after the theft found in his possession. There is, of course, a presumption to that effect as the law now stands, but it is only a presumption and is not sufficient to found a conviction upon unless the jury are satisfied from all the evidence beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.”
If the suggestions of the learned prosecutor were embodied in the law, I feel satisfied that they would materially assist the authorities in ridding the community of this class of offenders.