Ұрланған затты сатып алушы және қайта сатушы

Person who knowingly buys stolen goods in order to later resell them for profit

A fence, also known as a receiver, mover, or moving man, is an individual who knowingly buys stolen goods in order to later resell them for profit. The fence acts as a middleman between thieves and the eventual buyers of stolen goods who may not be aware that the goods are stolen. As a verb (e. g. "to fence stolen goods"), the word describes the behaviour of the thief in the transaction with the fence. As is the case with the word fence and its derivatives when used in its other common meanings (i. e. as a type of barrier or enclosure, and also as a sport), the word in this context is derived from the word defence. Among criminals, the fence originated in thieves' slang tracing from the notion of such transactions providing a "defence" against being caught. Thieves who patronise fences are willing to accept a low profit margin in order to reduce their risks by instantly "washing their hands" of illicitly gotten loot (such as black market goods) and disassociating from the criminal act that procured it. After sales, fences recoup their investment by disguising the stolen nature of the goods (via methods such as repackaging and altering/effacing serial numbers) and reselling the goods as near to the
market price as possible without drawing suspicion. This process often relies on a legal business (such as a pawnshop, flea market, or street vendor) in order to "launder" the stolen goods by intermixing them with legally obtained items of the same type. Fencing is illegal in all countries, but legally proving a violation of anti fencing laws can be difficult.

The fence, or receiver, is an old kind of criminal, historically attested in many countries, and with deep and complex dynamics within society.

Receiving was a widespread crime in Modern England and a concern for the English government of that period. It involved many other kinds of activities and crimes, and it saw its peak in the early 18th century with the notorious Jonathan Wild. Receiving is intrinsically connected to theft, as receivers, by definition, buy previously stolen goods in order to make profit out of them later. When organised theft grew in London thanks to the support of receivers,
There are 5,664 proceedings stored in the Old Bailey Online archive where the offence category is receiving. Of these, 1,973 have a verdict category of guilty. The 1718 Transportation Act also criminalised returning goods for a fee, which reveals that by then, receiving had already been taken to the next stage: returning goods to their owner, for a fee, instead of selling them in the second hand market. Thieves could in this way act as go betweens themselves, but go betweens could raise some suspicions, whereas relying on receivers added a safety layer against effective prosecution. A victim of theft was often willing to pay in order to get their goods back, in order to spare themselve further troubles and/or if the items taken had the potential to reveal unflattering details about their personal affairs. In addition to that, for many centuries, prosecution in England was entirely at the expense (of personal money, time, and effort) of the prosecutor. Therefore, given the difficulty of actually proving receiving in courts, common people, especially shopkeepers, often preferred compounding, feeling that prosecuting was not worth it. This gave a considerable advantage to receivers. In order to effectively act as go betweens for compounding, or brokerage, fences needed to personally know thieves or have ways to easily interact and bargain with them for a common benefit about compounding: nobody was in a better position to do so than thief takers. Thief takers grew increasingly notorious in England as a reward was introduced by the Crown for each successfully condemned criminal. Some of them, such as Anthony Dunn, publicly referred to as "pretended Thiefe taker" in a 1707 document, used their social power as thief takers as an advantage for receiving. Thief takers were usually so involved with thieves and gangs of thieves that they could easily condemn them for the reward, or use this power to intimidate and command thieves to do their bidding. In exchange for clemency or protection from capture or condemnation, they could have thieves to steal under their command. Indeed, thief takers could act as direct instigators, supporting their thieves with intelligence or offering them shelter at need (when convenient), and then acting as receivers with the stolen goods. Through , receivers could feed their own business. Confirmation of how thief taking and receiving were tightly connected is demonstrated by the career of Charles Hitchen, who was known as a thief taker. He bought off the position of Under City Marshal with his wife's money in order to have one of the best positions amongst the thief takers of the City. However, a vast part of his income came from the receiving activity related to the network of connections with London's underworld. Hitchen controlled this network through his official (that is to say, legal) position as a thief taker. The synergy between receiving, theft, and corruption, as well as official activities such as thief taking or pawnbroking was a where each element enhanced the others in a vicious circle. The master of this powerful synergy of London underworld was Jonathan Wild, who replaced his previous master, Charles Hitchen, in 1713, and gained control of London's crime and the title of "thief taker general". His power was due to his ruthless thief taking and intimidation activities as well as a complex web of intelligence also built around the diffusion of newspapers. However, overly bold receiving was his undoing, as it provoked the English government to promote further laws against receiving and related activities, such as the Transportation Act in 1718, also known as "Jonathan Wild Act", and its extension in 1720, which made returning goods for a fee a felony of the same importance and punishment as the crime (theft) related to the goods returned (which meant a capital offence in most cases, with raised potential reward for definitive evidence, from £40 to £140). Eventually, the government took direct action against Wild through lawyers, succeeding in condemning and executing him in 1725. Elizabeth Hitchen gave her inheritance money to her husband Charles in order to buy the Under City Marshal office for his plans. Moreover, women could also be active fences. For example, Elizabeth Fisher managed her own receiving business in her husband's alehouse. As of early 2018 a total of 5,664 proceedings were stored in the Old Bailey Online archive where the offence category is receiving. Of these, 1,858, nearly one third, have a defendant gender category of female.

The growth of the crime of receiving in Early Modern society, combined with the increasing interest of society on reading, led to depictions of the crime in the works of writers such as Daniel Defoe's Moll Flanders and John Gay's The Beggar's Opera.

The novel Moll Flanders narrates the whole life of its protagonist (Moll Flanders), but a relevant part of it is about her becoming a master thief. Moll's activity as a thief relied on the protection and support of her governess, who acted also as a receiver for the goods stolen by her affiliates. She is the one who buys Moll's stolen goods the first time, as Moll narrates "I was now at a loss for a market for my goods At last I resolved to go to my old governess." The governess character sealed Moll's fate as a thief, and eventually taught her the basics of thievery, redirecting Moll to work with other senior thieves. The Governess embodies female social cunning in London's underworld, from Defoe's point of view. She is a typical receiver of her time, and whereas many male receivers used thief taking as an official business, she relies on pawnbroking.

Under traditional Chinese law a fence, or receiver, (銷贓者), was a merchant who bought and sold stolen goods. Fences were part of the extensive network of accomplices in the criminal underground of Ming and Qing China. Their occupation entailed criminal activity, but as fences often had a non criminal primary occupation, they acted as liaisons between the respectable community and the criminal underworld, living a "precarious existence on the fringes of respectable society." Fences often worked alongside bandits in a network of criminal accomplices that was essential to ensuring both the safety and the success of fences. The path into the occupation of a fence stemmed, to a large degree, from necessity. As most fences came from the ranks of poorer people, they often took whatever work they could—both legal and illegal. In areas like Baoding and Hejian, local peasants and community members not only purchased military livestock such as horses and cattle, but also helped to hide the stolen livestock from the military. Local peasants and other members of the community became fences and hid criminal activities from officials, in exchange for goods or money from soldiers. At times, the robbers themselves filled the role of fences, selling to people they met on the road. This may have been preferable for robbers because they would not have to pay the fence a portion of the spoils. Butchers received stolen animals because owners could no longer recognise their livestock after the animal had been slaughtered. Animals were very valuable commodities within Ming China, and a robber could potentially sustain a living from stealing livestock and selling them to butcher fences. Although fences usually worked with physical stolen property, fences who also worked as itinerant barbers also sold information as a good. Itinerant barbers often amassed important sources of information and news as they travelled, and sold significant pieces of information to those who offered money. Often, such information was sold to criminals in search of places to hide or individuals to rob. In this way, itinerant barbers also served the role as a keeper of information that could be sold both to members of the criminal underground and to powerful clients. Fences not only sold stolen goods but were also occasionally involved in human trafficking hostages that bandits had kidnapped. Women and children were the easiest to sell and among the most common "objects" the fences sold. Most female hostages were sold to fences and then sold as prostitutes, wives, or concubines. One example of human trafficking comes from Chen Akuei's gang, who abducted a servant girl and sold her to Lin Baimao, who in turn sold her as a wife for thirty pieces of silver. In contrast to women who required beauty to sell for a high price, children were sold regardless of their physical appearance or family background. Young boys were often sold as servants or entertainers, while young girls were often sold as prostitutes.

As with merchants of honest goods, one of the most significant tools of a fence was their network of connections. As the middlemen between robbers and clients, fences needed to form and maintain widespread connections in both the “polite” society and among criminals. There were cases in which members of “well respected” society became receivers and harbourers. They not only helped bandits to sell the stolen goods but also acted as agents of the bandits in collecting protection money from local merchants and residents. These "part time" fences with high social status used their connection with bandits to help themselves gain social capital as well as wealth. It was also essential for fences to maintain a relationship with bandits in order to protect their livelihood. However, it was just as true that bandits needed fences to make a living. As a result, fences often held dominance in their relationship with bandits. Taking advantage of their dominance in their relationships with bandits, fences also cheated bandits by manipulating the prices they paid bandits for stolen property. These safe houses were located in places where there was a and where people from a variety of social backgrounds interacted. Brothels also helped bandits to hide and sell stolen goods because of the special Ming Law that exempted brothels from being held responsible “for the criminal actions of their clients.” Although the government required brothel owners to report any suspicious activity, the lack of government enforcement as well as the motivation of owners to make an extra income from fencing led brothels to become safe houses for bandits and gangs. Pawnshops were also affiliated with fencing stolen goods. The owners or employees of such shops often paid a low sum far below market value for stolen goods to bandits, and resold the goods to earn a profit.

Two different Ming Laws, the Da Ming Lü 大明律 and the Da Gao 大诰, drafted by the Hongwu Emperor Zhu Yuanzhang, sentenced fences to different penalties based on the category and value of the products that were stolen. In coastal regions, illegal trading with foreigners, as well as smuggling became a concern for the government during the mid to late Ming era. The government passed a law in which illegal smugglers who traded with foreigners without the consent of the government would be punished with exile to the border for military service. In areas where military troops were stationed, stealing and selling military property would result in more severe punishment. In the Jiaqing time, a case was recorded of a robber stealing and selling military horses. The emperor himself gave orders that the thieves who had stolen the horses and the people who had helped to sell the horses would be put on a cangue and sent to labour in a border military camp. In salt mines, the penalty for workers who stole and/or sold salt was the most severe. Because of the enormous value of salt in Ming China, anyone who was arrested and found guilty of stealing and selling government salt was put to death. Classified websites like Craigslist, AutoTrader. com, Pennysaver online, etc. are used for fencing goods online and circumventing the middleman fencer, as are a number of illegal darknet markets. E fenced items may have been shoplifted or otherwise stolen, or they may have been purchased with stolen credit cards or similar banking information. The latter practice is often intertwined with carding, which is the trafficking of stolen credit card numbers en masse. The sale of stolen credit cards, which usually takes place on the darknet markets, is a form of e fencing in its own right, and plays a role in purchasing physical goods that may be either e fenced themselves or fenced through more traditional means. Crime rings steal and/or use stolen financial information to pay for in demand items from retailers and then sell those items online, relying on the Internet's ability to reach buyers around the world and its anonymity; some theft rings even take pre orders, confident that they can steal and/or fraudulently pay for whatever is currently in demand. In the United States, major retailers such as Wal Mart and Target have advocated for federal legislation to combat Internet fencing. Some such proposed legislation would require major sales websites (e. g. eBay and Amazon. com) to retain some items' serial numbers and to release information to retailers about major sellers whom the retailers believe to be relying on stolen property. Such proposals have been opposed by the online retailers who would be required to maintain these records and take these actions. Stolen financial information can also itself be e fenced by using such data to purchase intangible goods and services on behalf of unsuspecting buyers. In some cases, criminals anonymously pose as agents selling items such as airline tickets at significantly discounted prices, while they are actually using stolen financial information to purchase such goods and services at the regular price from legitimate websites using the real identity of the final purchaser. Such criminals may request payment in cryptocurrency such as bitcoin to further cover their tracks. Once the fraud is discovered, it is usually the final purchaser(s) who will be held liable for the full amount of the purchase(s), and possibly even be at risk of criminal prosecution themselves depending on the jurisdiction. One airline representative described the practice as being "akin to buying a television set in a bar." An eBay spokesman stated, "Perhaps the dumbest place to try to fence stolen materials is on eBay," and news agencies have reported incidents of the police purchasing stolen property directly from thieves, leading to their capture. By early 2007, e fencing had become a $37 billion business.

Fencing is illegal almost everywhere, usually under a similar rationale as in the United States, where receipt of stolen property is a crime in every state, as well as a federal crime if the property crossed a state line. Occasionally federal agents will temporarily set up a false fence sting operation. Fencing is a common source of income for organised crime. In England and Wales, as in many U. S. states, the crime requires three elements: stolen property, the receiver's act of receiving or hiding it, and his knowledge of its stolen status.