Lost Shar Pei Found

That is bloody disgusting:mad: what a friggin sham, I would be taking the dog back by my own means or taking it to court, the fella should not have a leg to stand on, he should have taken more care who he bought from, unlessof course he was the one who stole:rolleyes:
 
I dont get that at all.

If you buy a car in good faith, that turns out to be stolen, the police take it straight off you. Why would it be different for dogs?
 
WTF? Mine are microchipped, DNA'd and tatooed and too right I'd be going right in there and getting my dog back!

If I'd bought a dog in that circumstance and there was an upset family who could prove it was theirs, I would hand it back?
 
Its unbelievable isn't it. Any decent person would return the dog, makes me wonder if the current 'owner' is not the decent sort and whose acquisition of the dog is a tad suspicious. Personally, it would be worth paying a couple of burly fellas, similiar in appearance to the Mitchell brothers to go and pay him a visit.
 
Doesn't add up.

If you buy something that turns out to be stolen you don't have title to it, good faith or not.
The good faith bit only enters into the matter if deciding if an offence of handling/possessing stolen goods applies.
Shar pei puppies are very recognisable so anyone buying one without papers would know something was dodgy.
 
So does that mean if my micro-chipped horse was stolen and sold on 'in good faith' to another person, the law would not be on my side...................

There must be more to this story..........otherwise all these companies selling micro-chipping are mis representing the product!!!!
 
But surely the theft was reported to the police at the time? Therefore the man was handling stolen goods and the dog should be removed. Dogs are "property" and no different to televisions and cars in law. I have a feeling that there is more to this than is being reported (imagine that in the Daily Mail). Also, I do wonder if the family have enough funds set aside for the future Vets bills......
 
If I had bought that dog I would give it back, just like the story of the 80 year old granny and her JRT lost and then rehomed by a charity.

Give the dog back and hope that doing the right thing will come back round one day to you, however much you have grown to love the animal. If it was YEARS down the line I might have said different, but in such a short space of time the animal should be given back to its rightful owners.
 
Farrierlover - I think the dog was reported lost as the dogs disappearance wasn't witnessed.:(

Finders Keepers
Another drawback of microchips is that they do not prove ownership of the dog. Thus, if your dog is stolen - even if it is scanned and its microchip identified with your details - you could still face a long legal battle to prove that you are the dog's rightful owner. In addition, anyone who picks up your dog can have it chipped, without having to prove ownership.

Ultimately, owners need to be realistic about identification tools, whatever type they choose. It is an excellent idea to micro-chip your dog, as a back-up, in conjunction with a collar and ID tag but owners should do their best to keep their pets safe and not rely on anything as an automatic "return to sender" device.


This I never knew and is a worry.
 
Ah I see, I didn't know that. Although the microchip isn't a record of ownership, surely the purchase receipt and pedigree documents are? If the dog is registered with the KC in the owner's name (as the piece suggests) then that is enough proof? I still think there is more to this than meets the eye.
 
Doesn't add up.

If you buy something that turns out to be stolen you don't have title to it, good faith or not.
.

Sorry thats not necessarily true.
Without knowing the full details of this case i cant comment on this case BUT it appears that this case has gone to what Police call an "interpleader"

Basically if someone has something stolen and another person buys this "stolen" property in good faith then the Police are unable to say who is the legal owner despite whoever has the papers for it.
The police should investigate the theft but if they cant prove a case a theft/ handing stolen goods etc against the "new" owner they are unable to prove any criminal offences by the new owner. What happens then is they will then advice interpleader proceedings, which is not criminal law but civil.

It will then be upto the civil courts to decide who has the rightful ownership of the property.

In some cases the police have the power to sieze the property and store it till the interpleader proceedings are over. On the other hand they can issue the "new" owner with "rules" that they are not allowed to dispose of/ alter/ sell or change the property until proceedings are over and if they do they will face prosecution. However in this case if the dog is being looked after etc.. they would not sieze it as once they do they are then responsible for the cost of keeping the dog etcc. till the court case is over.

it appears that this is the case with this dog. That the Police are unable to prove the "new" owner has commited any criminal offences. If they had the dog would of course be returned to its original owner.
 
maybe i'm being stupid here, but isn't the point of micro chipping an animal should it get lost or stolen?
Whether the man brought it in good faith or not, he is not the legal owner. Hope the poor girl gets her dog back.
 
maybe i'm being stupid here, but isn't the point of micro chipping an animal should it get lost or stolen?
Whether the man brought it in good faith or not, he is not the legal owner. Hope the poor girl gets her dog back.

If the dog wasnt microchipped there would be no way the original owner could prove she ever had the dog. If the dog was stolen and the police could prove a case against the new owner, then the whole case would fall onto the microchip, becasue without this the dogs identity could not be proven. However in this case the fact its microchipped and im pressuming the original owners have all the documentation, would obviously assist the original owner greatly in the case of civil proceedings.

You do not need papers etc to prove legal ownership. Microchip papers/ passports do NOT prove you are the legal owner.
 
Stinkbomb, thats very interesting, are you a legal (b)eagle by any chance?:D Do you know what constitutes legal ownership of a dog? All mine are microchipped, but just wondering if there is anything else that can be done, like tatooing which would strengthen any ownership confusion?:)
 
Stinkbomb, thats very interesting, are you a legal (b)eagle by any chance?:D Do you know what constitutes legal ownership of a dog? All mine are microchipped, but just wondering if there is anything else that can be done, like tatooing which would strengthen any ownership confusion?:)

Im a police officer ( but dont tell anyone!! ) Ive never had this experience myself although many moons ago in work, i went through the interpleader process with regards a motorbike!

With regards what constitutes legal ownership it would depend on the circumstances. Anything you have that helps with ownership would aid any court case. ie. plenty photographs, and paperwork etc... however if the new owners were "innocent purchasers" this is where the "who is the legal owner" comes into question and courts are required to decide.

Even though my horses and dog are microchipped i always take photos and note any markings, scars, etc.. that someone else wouldnt know about.

Another note if something is stolen/lost and not reported to then police straight away this would hamper any case. I know MOST people would report their animals/ property lost or stolen asap but there are people who dont. Some people dont report it until its been found thus casting doubt in any court case that they actually wanted the item in the first place. :)
 
But surely the theft was reported to the police at the time? Therefore the man was handling stolen goods and the dog should be removed. Dogs are "property" and no different to televisions and cars in law. ..

Handling stolen goods....."A person handles stolen goods if (otherwise than in the course of stealing), knowing or believing them to be stolen goods he dishonestly receives the goods, or dishonestly undertakes or assists in their retention, removal, disposal or realisation by or for the benefit of another person, or if he arranges to do so."

If the police cant prove he "knowingly" or "believed" the dog to be stolen he is not guilty of handling stolen goods.

You can have "stolen property" in your possession and not be guilty of handling stolen goods.
 
Thanks stinkbomb, i'm off to do a David Bailey on my lot, I shall photograph every part of their anatomy!:D

Here's hoping that the family concerned get their pup back, they're been through a tough time and surely deserve a little bit of luck.
 
Yes lets hope so!! Im not agreeing this is right for this dog as we dont know the true circumstances that the new owners bought the dog under but i know if it was my dog that had been stolen then found, no matter what the law says it would be back with me!!!

edited to also say that if insurance companies have been involved its even more complicated. If the dog stolen was insured and the insurance company paid out the original owners then the original owners wouldnt have a stake on the dog. it would be upto the insurance company to go through the interpleader proceedures with the new owner. If the insuracne company won at court it has been known for them to do a deal with the original owners that if the return the insurance money, they get the item back. if they wont the insuracne can just sell the item, to recover costs.
 
Last edited:
Is DNA testing also a good tool? It is primarily used by my breed fraternity to stop people entering dogs/using at stud untested or unproven dogs pretending they are a top winning, imported, health tested superstar but still claiming all the money and prizes that a dog like that could command but would it also be useful in identifying stolen dogs?
 
Is DNA testing also a good tool? It is primarily used by my breed fraternity to stop people entering dogs/using at stud untested or unproven dogs pretending they are a top winning, imported, health tested superstar but still claiming all the money and prizes that a dog like that could command but would it also be useful in identifying stolen dogs?

I would think that would help in identification of an animal and could assist in ownership but you would still need to prove you owned the animal that had been dna'd.
 
Top