Top
Dealing In Stolen Property

Dealing in Stolen Property 

We Have Offices Conveniently Located in Deland and Daytona Beach 

Dealing in stolen property is a crime that is explained in Florida Statute 812.019. If you are charged with Dealing in stolen property, you find yourself charged with a plethora of other charges, including theft and burglary. Navigating a situation such as this can seem overwhelming, but understanding the law and the accusations that you are faced with serves an enormous benefit to you. In DeLand, we find most of our Dealing in Stolen Property cases derive out of our local pawn shops and scrap metal receptacles. When a property is reported stolen, the first place the officers begin to search for those items are in those shops.

We have offices in DeLand and Daytona Beach and help clients throughout Central Florida fight their criminal charges.

First, it is important to distinguish between the two types of Dealing in stolen property: fencing and organizing.

“Fencing” simply means trafficking the stolen property, where trafficking can be either buying or selling. Fencing also applies if you merely intend to traffic in the stolen property, regardless of whether or not the crime is actually committed. Under the law, the State must prove beyond every reasonable doubt, that you trafficked or endeavored to traffic a property, and that you knew or should have known that the property was stolen. Notice that the law does not require for you to conclusively know that the property was stolen, and it does not require you to be the thief. Instead, the law uses what are called “inferences”, or assumptions about your knowledge based on the circumstances.

The same applies for organizing. Organizing dealing in stolen property requires that State to prove, again, beyond all reasonable doubt, that you initiated, organized, planned, financed, managed, or supervised the theft of a property, and that you trafficked the property. Again, the law uses inferences to determine your level of knowledge about the criminal activity. These inferences include:

  • Possession of recently stolen property,
  • Proof of purchase or sale of property that is substantially below the fair market value,
  • If you are a dealer in property (such as a pawn shop owner), operating the purchase or sale of property outside of normal business practices, or
  • If you are a dealer in property, the name or phone number of a person on the property other than the individual selling the property

All of the above can be used to infer that you knew or should have known that the property was stolen. But there is one common thread between all of the inferences: they are all taken as true unless sufficiently explained.

This is where hiring an aggressive, experienced defense attorney is exceptionally important. Attorney Matt Thompson has experience negotiating with the State, and can help you explain the circumstances of your particular scenario. Having worked for 10 years at the State Attorney’s Office, Matt Thompson knows the law, and he knows how to think like a prosecutor in order to negotiate your position. The penalties for Dealing in stolen property are high: if convicted in fencing, you stand to be convicted of a second degree felony, with a possibility of 15 years of imprisonment, 15 years of probation, and a fine of $10,000. If convicted of organizing, you could face 30 years of imprisonment, 30 years of probation, and a fine of $10,000. With all of this at stake, don’t hesitate to call Thompson Law, P.A. for your free case evaluation at (386) 280-4977.

Client-Focused. RESULT-DRIVEN.

Working Closely with You To Build a Strong Case
  • All Charges Reduced Aggravated Assault with a Firearm

    Client was accused of shooting a shotgun over the head of two minors. Attorney Thompson did a public records request to discover that officers reported to the scene of the crime the night of the incident and spoke to the victims on the evening the alleged crime occurred and believed the victims to be intoxicated and unreliable. Attorney Thompson conducted depositions of the officers and ultimately all charges were reduced to a misdemeanor and no incarceration.

  • All Charges Dismissed Domestic Battery

    Defendant was trapped inside car where her boyfriend was acting aggressive. Defendant had to take legal action against the victim to remove him from vehicle. Attorney Thompson sent letter to State early in the case to outline defenses and mitigation and all charges were dismissed prior to filing.

  • All Charges Dismissed Robbery

    Attorney Thompson met with the Client soon after his arrest. It was clear that the person who was in the vehicle with the Client was the person guilty of committing the robbery and that the Client was more of a bystander. Attorney Thompson provided information to the State Attorney’s Office to separate the Client from the co-defendant. The information provided to the State resulted in all charges against the Defendant being dismissed.

  • All Charges Reduced Aggravated Battery

    Attorney Thompson conducted depositions on the alleged victim and third-party witness. Attorney Thompson was able to show that the victim was harassing the Defendant and was not being truthful to the police. Attorney Thompson filed Order to Show Cause against the third-party witness for avoiding subpoena for depositions.

  • All Charges Dismissed Racing on the Highway

    Client was arrested after leaving a car show in a fast vehicle. Officers suspected the client of racing another vehicle and police officers pulled him over, drug him out of his vehicle, and arrested him for both racing on the highway and resisting an officer without violence. Upon review of the body camera video, Attorney Matt Thompson raised an excessive use of force complaint against the arresting officer. All charges against the client were dismissed.

  • All Charges Dismissed Domestic Violence

    Client was texting a friend when her significant other tried to grab for her phone. When the client tried to pull away, the victim claimed that he was battered and the client was arrested and brought before DCF due a child being in the house. Attorney Matt Thompson wrote a letter to the State explaining the discrepancy in evidence and claimed that the client was in fact moving away from the victim and did not intentionally try to hit the victim. All charges against the client were dismissed.