quire? It occurred to your committee that perhaps recognition of the key role of the receiver was primarily an English observation. Upon further investigation, however, it was discovered that there did exist some very forceful American statements about the fence. For example, an investigation by the Association of Grand Jurors of New York County in 1927, came to the following conclusion: He (the fence) not only furnishes the incentive to crime by providing a market, but he organizes and directs criminals and very often finances them.15 The Grand Jurors even went so far as (in titling their work) to describe the criminal receiver as the "Source of Organized Crime and Creator of Criminals." 16 More recently, the President's Crime Commission (1967) called the fence one of the two "essential relationships" necessary for the professional criminal to establish in order to pursue a successful career in crime. And Jerome Hall, upon whose analysis of criminal receiving conducted in 1935 the Crime Commission based its remarks,18 updated his own work in 1968, stating: 17 It is clear that the criminal receiver (fence) is the heart of the theft problem. Not only large scale professional theft but also countless thefts by juveniles and occasional offenders depend on the availability of a regular market—and to provide that service is the crucial function of the criminal receiver.19 There was no scarcity, then, of American statements regarding the "fences's" prominence in the area of property theft. Your committee recognized instead that a strong and definite historical background existed regarding the significance of its inquiry. B. A LEGAL LEGACY But if a strong historical background regarding the importance of the fence existed, an equally strong and somewhat disturbing legislative precedent relating to the fence also was present, giving shape and impetus to the work of your committee. Most of the statements of the past, it was discovered, seemed to fall on deaf ears. The receiver of goods was not originally recognized at common law and it was not until the 17th century that he was even regarded as an accessory after the fact, precluding his prosecution until the actual thief had been arrested.20 Later legal revisions succeeded in making him subject to prosecution as a misdemeanant even if the thief were not arrested, but he remained an accessory rather than a principal felon. Even the remarkable and notorious career of Jonathan Wild 21 15 The Criminal Receiver of Stolen Goods-Source of Organized Crime and Creator of Criminals, A Survey with Recommendations, Prison Committee of the Association of Grand Jurors of N. Y. County (N.Y.: Putnam, 1928), preface, p. vii. 10 Ibid. 17 The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society, Report of the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govt. Printing Off., 1967) at p. 46. 18 Hail's original work was Theft, Law and Society (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1935). 1 Jerome Hall, "Theft, Law and Society, 1968" ABA Journal, Vol. 54, October 1968, pp. 960-967, at p. 962. 20 See Hail, op. cit., supra., note 18, at pp. 52-62, 70-76, 173–189. The statutory modification being achieved by 1 Anne C.9 (1702) and 5 Anne C.31 (1706). did not persuade British lawmakers that the receiver deserved more serious legislative attention.22 Fielding and Colquhoun, though eloquent in their arguments regarding the receiver and in the need for reform in the piecemeal legal approach to his activities found in the English law, did not succeed in convincing Parliament. Indeed, it was not until 1827 that criminal receiving became an original offense and the receiver became subject to indictment either as an accessory or for a substantive felony (by 7 and 8 Geo. IV, C. 29, S. 54). The American legal experience was very similar to the British one with the fence being approached in a piecemeal fashion still seen in state statutes. There remain special provisions in many state codes relating to the receiving of specific goods, silk, for example, or livestock or metals,23 responding apparently to particular situations that have arisen over time rather than to the general nature of the activity itself. In this regard, American statutes seem to have fallen prey to what Hall describes as the "illusion" that antisocial behavior can be made to disappear "by any simple device such as passing a new law or restoring capital punishment on a wholesale scale." 24 The British experience of a failure to respond to evidence regarding the receiver has also been observed here. The New York Grand Jurors, for example, attempted to revise the law in New York through their study but the state legislature failed to act. Your committee saw, therefore, both ample evidence of the importance of its inquiry and ample precedent for failure to respond forcefully. This gave it both encouragement and a firm resolve to investigate thoroughly, to consider carefully and recommend strongly and appropriately on the basis of the evidence it was to receive. The report your committee presents here, it is hoped, has not, and will not, fall on deaf ears. III. THE COMMITTEE'S HEARINGS ON FENCING A. SIGNIFICANCE Your chairman, in his opening statement at the commencement of these hearings, emphasized the need to establish "a factual record of how stolen property is disposed of and its damaging effects on legitimate business and on crime-inflated prices the consumer pays for his daily needs." 25 Your committee believes that the ensuing testimony and other evidentiary material gathered at these hearings represent the most comprehensive and inclusive record compiled anywhere on this subject. Not since an English parliamentary committee investigated the problems associated with property theft in London in the late eighteenth century has such a searching official inquiry been conducted into this area of crime.26 2 See Gerald Howson, Thief-Taker General: The Rise and Fall of Jonathan Wild (London: Hutchinson, 1970); Howson notes that Wild's career "taught no lessons, brought no reforms, and alleviated no suffering." (p. 283.) 23 For a review of American statutes relating to receiving of stolen property, see Duncan Chappell and David Hirschel, "A Summary of the Provisions Relating to Criminal Receiv ing Contained in United States Statutes," op. cit., supra., note 12, at pp. 163–171. 24 Hall, op. cit., supra., note 18, at pp. 70-71. 25 Op. Cit. Supra. note 12, at p. 2. 18 For a discussion of the work of this English committee, see Duncan Chappell and Marilyn Walsh, "No Questions Asked: A Consideration of the History of Criminal Receiving," Op. Cit. Supra. note 8, at pp. 24-25. Your committee's hearings also comprise the first Federal inquiry into the criminal redistribution system for stolen property in this country. Indeed, with the notable exceptions of the pioneering work of the Association of Grand Jurors of New York County in the 1920s, and of Professor Jerome Hall's research in the 1930s, no other organization or individual in the United States has, until now undertaken any major review of this system.27 B. FOCUS 1. Hearings of May 1 and 2, 1973 The initial hearings of your committee on this topic concentrated upon the response of criminal justice agencies in two of the nation's largest cities, Los Angeles and New York, to the stolen property redistribution system. The testimony received from representatives of these agencies in the two cities established in dramatic and graphic form the dimensions of the problem confronting our society in the theft area. As Joseph P. Busch, District Attorney, County of Los Angeles, California, stated to your committee: Any consideration of this problem must begin with the realization that receiving stolen property is a major industry-dwarfing many legitimate enterprises.28 Franklyn H. Snitow, Assistant District Attorney, County of New York, noted in his testimony to your committee that in the construction industry alone, in the State of New York, property valued at $55 million was stolen in 1972. Mr. Snitow observed that with losses of this magnitude "we are talking about organized thievery and largescale distribution of property. . . . Our chief concerns are industrial and consumer goods which are sold to the fence." 29 Your committee received fascinating testimony from several persons who had participated in the theft and disposition of such goods in New York and Los Angeles. Miss A. Jones, a convicted burglar appearing before your committee under an assumed name, described how she committed a thousand burglaries over a five-year period in Los Angeles County to support her drug habit. Miss Jones would on many occasions steal to order for a well known fence in the Los Angeles area. This fence, who denied all knowledge of any illegal activities before your committee, specialized in the sale of stolen office equipment. Miss Jones would be informed of the type and volume of equipment required by the fence. It was, in Miss Jones' view, rather "like placing an order in a catalogue. He [the fence] just would tell me— like business machines, he would tell me how many he wanted and when he needed them, and placing an order, and I would have them." 30 Los Angeles criminal justice agency personnel estimated that the volume of business undertaken by this particular fence earned him an annual income of more than $100,000. Mr. B. White, another convicted offender to appear before your committee under a fictitious name, also commented on the highly See The Criminal Receiver of Stolen Goods-Source of Organized Crime and Creator of Criminals. Report of the Association of Grand Jurors of New York County. New York: Putnam, 1928; and also Hall, Jerome, Theft, Law and Society. Indianapolis; BobbsMerrill, 1952. lucrative business conducted by many fences, this time in New York City. When asked by your chairman whether "master fences" existed in New York, Mr. White responded: "Oh, let me see. You got-well, off hand, I know about four big fences that can come up with $100,000 in cash, no sweat." 31 Mr. White also described in substantial detail the methods used to hijack truck loads fo valuable merchandise from the airports and wharfs of New York City. These airports and wharfs were, in Mr. White's terms, all "beautiful places" to conduct such criminal operations, although in his opinion the best site of all for these nefarious activities was Kennedy Airport. In summary, the testimony presented before your committee in these initial hearings established beyond a shadow of doubt the key role played by the fence in the criminal redistribution of stolen property. From the perspective of both those seeking to prevent theft and those committing theft, the fence was seen to be a pivotal figure who facilitates and encourages one of contemporary society's most damaging forms of criminal behavior. As Robert Earl Barnes, a convicted and incarcerated burglar, wrote in a letter to your chairman: The fence plays a vital role in each successful hijacking, dock and boxcar looting, and burglary that is committed within the United States daily. Without such an individual as the "Fence," such acts of crime as mentioned above could never be successful or for that matter, even committed.32 Yet despite establishing the critical importance of the fence in the total theft microcosm, your committee's initial hearings also discovered a marked lack of successful enforcement activity directed against fences within the two cities surveyed. Mr. White, asked by your chairman to rate the chances of being caught in the possession of stolen goods, said they were "very slim." 33 Arrest and conviction rates of fences prosecuted in Los Angeles and New York City fully supported Mr. White's assessment of the low level of risk associated with dealing in stolen property. Mr. Busch, District Attorney for the County of Los Angeles, referred in his testimony to the fact that the crime of receiving stolen property has a consistently low conviction The reasons for this failure to make an impact upon the activity of fences will be explored in substantial detail in later sections of your committee's report. But we turn first to consider the second and most 31 Ibid., p. 153. 32 Ibid., p. 159. 33 Ibid., p. 154. 34 Ibid., pp. 3-4. recent series of hearings conducted by your committee on the subject of criminal redistribution systems for stolen property. 2. Hearings of April 30 and May 2, 1974 Having identified the scope and dimensions of the criminal redistribution systems for stolen goods in two cities located respectively in the two most populous states of the nation, your committee directed its primary inquiry in a second series of hearings to the federal response to this subject. Substantial oral and written testimony was received by your committee from representatives of the United States Department of Justice having knowledge of and responsibilities for this field of crime. Testimony was also received from representatives of the City of Miami Police Department, Miami, Florida, concerning new and innovative approaches being tested in that city to combat the activities of criminal receivers. Finally, your committee heard evidence from a criminologist who had conducted an extensive study of fencing behavior in a major urban area of the Northeast United States. In opening remarks at this second series of hearings, your chairman emphasized: that the major responsibility for initiating action against the Addressing the specific question of federal responsibilities in this field, your chairman further noted *** that fences, like many of their clients, are no respectors Kevin T. Maroney, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of Justice, as a witness acknowledged concern of federal authorities about the present and continuing increase in theft of property. Mr. Maroney indicated that the Department of Justice had recently concentrated its efforts in combating cargo thefts, securi 35 U.S. Congress, Senate. Select Committee on Small Business. Criminal Redistribution Systems and Their Economic Impact on Small Business, Part 3, 348 pp. Hearings before the Select Committee on Small Business on criminal redistribution (fencing) of goods stolen from legitimate business activities and their effect on commerce, April 30 and May 2, 1974, 93d Congress, 2d session, p. 470. 36 Ibid., pp. 551-2. S. Rept. 93-1318 --- 3 |