Interesting to read what iang made of my note. Whne I read the article it made me think about absolute ownership vs relative ownership; nothwithstanding what Lord Bingham says between gritted teath in JA Pye v Graham, I still think that relative ownership is a better system.

For JA Pye see, http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2002/30.html

An easier approach might be to track down the money, and recover it.

Of course the fraudster may have bought things. Then, the money should be recovered from the sellers, leaving them the poorer, for having dealt with the fraudster. Why is this so hard to accept? If the situation were reversed, and the fraudster had sold stolen goods to the dealers, the victims recover their cars, jewels, etc.

And of course the fraudster may have walked out the door of a bank with cash, somewhere. Thus, we should consider the pros and cons of doing away with cash-- if you want a lawful world, that would be an option.

And of course the fraudster may have transferred the money fifty times, and the whole result being delay and difficulty tracking the funds. THIS is something that the banksters can fix. They have no problem fixing things they want to fix. This happens to be something they don't want to fix. I would speculate that recent cases of US and UK governments forcing information out of Swiss banks is more about tracing stolen loot from the financial meltdown, than chasing tax evasion.

So, we could consider an end to cash.

Hi Todd

You're describing a mixture of following and tracing property; the difficulty of undergoing this process depends upon the circumstances of each case. Further, after you've done this process, next comes the question of how to get back. Or, whether or not it is possible to get it back.

None of the above are trivial exercises.

G.