[prvit]

That is not the law, you’re just making up things out of whole cloth.

> 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.

[woodruffw]

> That is not the law, you’re just making up things out of whole cloth.

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...

[prvit]

> Every US state that I'm aware of makes it a crime to knowingly receive stolen property

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.

[woodruffw]

Mens rea is a sufficient condition, not a necessary one. You can also be found culpable under the standards of reckless action or criminal negligence. This is also true in every state that I'm aware of.

"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.

[prvit]

It’s literally impossible to sell goods from third parties at scale without inevitably accepting stolen goods.

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.

[woodruffw]

That's why the standard is negligence and/or recklessness. Nobody expects Amazon to catch every single illegal use of their platform: the expectation is that they apply reasonable effort to doing so, including demonstrating a response to publicly known incidents of crime rings operating on their site.

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.

[prvit]

> the expectation is that they apply reasonable effort to doing so, including demonstrating a response to publicly known incidents of crime rings operating on their site.

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.