Originally Posted by
M3Roc
I don't think you read the comments thoroughly. Nitronick did not send him stolen property. At least im assuming that nitronick had rightful possession. Read the posts again starting with the 8th post, mainly his last sentence. If nitronick was the rightful possessor of the items, then the guy he sent it to cannot be charged with receiving stolen property because it was not stolen until the guy received it which would make him the thief. Nitronick would be the victim here. Now if the guy that ripped off nick were to pass on the goods, then the next person in line is guilt for possession of stolen goods weather knowingly or not.
I read it thoroughly, I just think you don't understand the law. Again, in California receiving stolen property is the same section as possession of stolen property (496 PC). Again, assuming the intent is there, the moment he gets that stuff, it's stolen (obtained by fraud section 484 PC). So he theoretically would be guilty of the theft and possession/receiving stolen property.