William H. Geiger III wrote:
ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) said:
Tim May wrote:
I try to deconstruct events, to determine what the real issues are.
Take the case of the ongoing flap over Switzerland and claims that Swiss banks hid gold, jewels, and other forms of money for high-ranking Nazis. Adding to the flap--actually, making it a newsworthy event--is the allegation, probably true, that some of the gold was taken from Jews and others sent to extermination camps.
... snip ...
OK, so it's clear to all right-thinking persons what should be done: Switzerland should return the money to the heirs of those killed by the Nazis.
Ah, but it's not so clear to me. I guess I'm not a right-thinking person.
According to americal common law, as I understand it, no one can get a valid title to the property from someone who did not have such title.
E.g., if you steal Vulis's car and then sell it to me, I will not have the title to the car and will have to return it back to Vulis (and may be able to try to recover my loss from you). The same will be true if you lend the stolen car to me -- he can get it back if he proves that it is his.
I find that reasoning to be quite good.
Lending stolen money (or stolen golden teeth) to banks is no different than lending stolen cars.
American law does not have to apply to Switzerland, but I find that particular part of it to be just. The issue, of course, is coming up with the proof.
I will appreciate if someone could correct me.
It is an intresting approach to justify current action agains the Swiss Banks. If you could prove that the Swiss received stolen property what about the "statute of limitations"? Most US crimes require that they be prosecuted within x # of years ( I think that theft is 7yrs. ). Considering that this all happened over 50yrs and AFAIK no capital crimes have been commited by the swiss banks even if they are "guilty" of receiving stolen property I can hardly see how they can be held accountable now.
The Swiss banks did not commit any crimes, or at least I do not see any crimes having been committed. They simply (in my view, if the cold facts are true and convincing) are in possession of stolen property, which has to be returned to their owner or their owners' estates or something like that. It is, like, if I buy a stolen car, as long as I was not aware or any impropriety, I cannot be prosecuted (is that correct?). But the owner can take my car back regardless of how long I had it. It is not intended to be a punishment, but rather a restoration of the original ownership. This principle, among other things, seeks to discourage people from buying stolen goods. Again, please correct me if I am mistaken. - Igor.