That was part of the defense's argument to keep him out of a long prison sentence. Apparently, the defense thought that 10 months was too long.
The HPA is a set of civil statutes. True enough selling unmarked coins implicates the HPA; however, a conviction under the criminal counterfeiting statute is worse. Of course, the FTC could still act, but doing so would likely only hinder the counterfeiter from making restitution.
Really? If "one side thinks and explains," while the other side "has faith... or is expecting great financial rewards," is an appearance of neutrality, I'd like to see what you consider actually biased.
He is not the only poster and is the third moderator to speak on this topic. My comments in the other thread were not targeted at @desertgem. The bias comment was with regards to comments and descriptions in threads and not necessarily from moderators. Until very recently, the moderators were silent on the issue. If, however, there comes a point when people cannot criticize Carr's pieces and only promotion of his pieces is allowed, then yes, it would be biased if cheerleading is the only permissible expression permitted when discussing Carr's works.
If he was getting fake Morgans at $2 each, then they couldn't have had much, if any, silver in them. Some pawn shops might be fooled by fake Morgans made from silver, but fake Morgans made from base metal? I doubt it. Cal
I've seen pawn shops with people who know nothing about anything working behind the counter with an owner that "phones it in" they see a Morgan and they pay $10 for it. No date checking, no weighing, no nothing. "Its a Morgan and my boss says just pay $10 for them" line of thinking. At one shop I was told someone recently brought in a 100oz silver bar and when I asked if they drilled it or weighed it they asked why they would do that. I showed them a certain Chinese website and their jaws collectively dropped.
How is stating the facts biased ? And that's all he did. That said, it is not unusual when one disagrees with another's point of view on a subject to claim that the other is biased.
They're just playing the odds on the Morgans. Sometimes they will get burned; mostly they won't I guess. Averages out to a win if they're paying $10 for Morgans. A 100 ounce silver bar is serious money though, about $1600 at current spot. If they paid 75% of spot, it would still be a huge loss if the bar was fake. Of course, if they sell it to a customer at better than spot, they'd make money but risk the customer calling the law eventually. If they tried to sell it to a wholesaler, the truth would come tumbling out. Cal
Are you talking about knowingly selling a fake bar as a real one? Or are you referring to the situation @Cascade pointed out where they bought a bar and didn't test it because they didn't think it could possibly be fake, then sold it to a customer? One is criminal; the other is just plain stupid and should result in the customer getting his or her money back.
Well, once they've discovered that the silver bar is fake, some folks may be mad enough to call the police first rather than go back to the seller first. So, the law may be called-in regardless of whether or not seller knew the bar was fake. The police, DA, and maybe a court would have to decide intent. Cal
I think 10 months is a fair punishment, and think... If the max sentence for said crime is 15 years there is a good chance that Mr., ummm... Sithole gave information useful to the authorities concerning his supplier in order to reduce his punishment, and up the chain it goes. That is just a theory, but if we hear of similar busts in the near future I'm sure it won't be coincidence. I think we should be grateful as collectors that the law is actually taking steps to get these counterfeit pieces of crap off the market. Thanks for posting this link Cascade!
Sure. But I wouldn't assume he talked for a lienent sentence. With overcrowding, reducing a 15yr sentence to 10months in a non-violent crime case isn't out of the ordinary.