Posted on 04/06/2015 6:20:25 AM PDT by Gamecock
**Money is fungible and the church may not be legally responsible.**
I agree 100%.
There is a higher law that a church is accountable for though.
Physical property is usually recoverable, cash not so much.
In some cases physical property is un recoverable. My step mother’s father bought a house that was later determined to be built with stolen lumber and materials. Obviously they couldn’t tear the house down and take the materials back.
Fortunately as soon investigators showed up at his house he retained an attorney. The feds did try and fail to bill him for the sales tax on the individual materials.
As an American, I’m more predisposed to calling Islam a “supposed religion” than I am for some self-identified Christian church, frankly. If it is a scam church, then they likely have their books in order, and a lawyer on staff, to boot.
I don’t care, really. The money this crook took is gone or has been recovered to the extent that it can and this government is just flexing its unlegalized power. If it is stolen, PROVE it. If was received illegally, PROVE it.
Otherwise, they can take a hike and go find a DA and a judge and set a trial. We’ve all heard the government can indict a ham sandwich....do it or STFU.
I agree with you. Even if not legally obligated, they should give it back. God doesn’t need stolen money. If they are really about enlarging His kingdom, they should consider what keeping the money does to their testimony. They should consider how they appear to the victims. I am certain my congregation would not keep the money and we are a tiny group of only 100-120 people. Even so, we would find a way to repay every penny.
Even though the money is fully legal, some churches have refused donations from lottery winners because they understand the social harm lotteries do to the underclass.
Ass a witness I agree they should return the money. But if the church does not have cash any admission to owing the money would open an avenue to litigation to force the return on condition dictated by a court.
“The difference her is there were no services received.”
That’s nonsense.
“It was a donation to a supposed church.”
Your bias Is clouding your reasoning.
> Answer the questions I asked.
No ;-)
Actually, that’s likely the Michigan State Employee’s Pension Fund. . . Amway, for all its’ pyramid marketing, at least sells a good product.
Civil “servants”. . . not so much. .
Clearly the church accepted the donations in good faith. That said, it was stolen property. Generally stolen property is subject to legal clawback as long as the crime is not outside the applicable statute of limitations. (In those cases the law gets murky and there is some variation between jurisdictions.) Unfortunately the law does not offer much relief for whoever has the misfortune of holding the hot goods at the time it is discovered that they belong to someone else. The only exception would be if they church actually did not have the money or it would be bankrupted by its return. In such a case they might be able to argue in court that it was simply not in their power to return it. However, I don’t think that this is the case.
In any event, and legal questions aside, morally the church has no claim to the money and it must be returned. A victim of theft does not lose claim to their property because it has been fenced or passed on by the thief.
How much money do you suppose the Catholic Church, among others, accepted in donations from various mafioso the last 100 years or so? Do you think the Catholic Church would ever give any of that money back?
That church probably doesn’t have that kind of money available and as they said ti has been spent on construction projects, among other things. Should we balance out the practical good they may have done with it? Just a thought.
Or people that broke the law speeding on their way to church, or who might have stolen something in their life?
Why not?
Your analogy didn’t hold because cigarette packs don’t cost 500 dollars.
Just like hitting on a pretty girl, it doesn’t hurt one bit to ask just for the one in a million shot they feel sorry for you and say yes.
Now for them to push further than just asking is when it will start to get interesting.
Or someone who cheats on their taxes and drops it in the collection plate instead. Or for that matter, if the feds simply feel that they aren’t collecting enough by normal means, just take it from the church instead.
Its a damn slippery slope.
No, they actually have the car. This particular fraudster bought rare cars. They exist and they are being sold to provide restitution to the defrauded parties.
If the car was totalled it would be unrecoverable. If the fraudster donated money to a soup kitchen and the soup has been eaten, there is no recovery.
But when he donates it to a (very ostentatiously wealthy) church, then the plaintiffs can sue the church on the grounds of fraudulent conveyance to get that money back. In this case there’s a statute of limitations problem, so we’ll see how the courts decide, but I do have a consistent position. It’s called American case law and the US legal system. If you don’t like it move somewhere else.
this isn’t the government trying to take money from a Church for it’s own account, it’s a Federal prosecutor trying to restore stolen funds to wronged plaintiffs. So dumb.
What you said. Excellent description of the issue at hand.
Its unrecoverable.
1. The IRS returns taxes associated with the fraud;
2. The insurance agents are forced to return all of their commissions;
3. Errors and omissions insurance carriers pay out on their policies;
4. The companies that made deals with this guy return their gross profits;
5. Any political contributions made are returned; and,
6. Every other person/organization who benefited financially from the misappropriated funds.
Michigan is very friendly for creditors. Much more generous than in most states.
Statute of limitations in the State of Washington for open accounts one year. Once had some company that tried to sue in small claims court for money I did not owe went away when I cited the statute and the case law in my response.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.