Under Presumptions for CPSP, which scenario creates a presumption that the property is stolen?

Under Presumptions for CPSP, which scenario creates a presumption that the property is stolen?

• A. A pawnbroker possesses stolen property
• B. A person possesses two or more stolen credit cards
• C. Both A and B
• D. Neither A nor B

Answer: (C)

Presumptions for CPSP are built around turning certain possession circumstances into automatic inferences that the property is stolen. When a pawnbroker holds property, the business of buying and selling used goods creates a clear risk that items are moving through theft channels. The law acknowledges this by making it a presumption that property in a pawnbroker’s possession is stolen, unless proven otherwise. This helps focus investigations on potential theft and fencing rather than chasing innocent explanations. Similarly, having two or more stolen credit cards is a strong, highly specific clue of theft activity. The likelihood that someone legitimately possesses multiple stolen cards is extremely low, so the law treats that possession as presumptive evidence that the cards are stolen property. This again supports the conclusion that the property is stolen and facilitates charging and investigation. Because both scenarios meet the criteria for these presumptions, they both establish that the property is stolen.

Presumptions for CPSP are built around turning certain possession circumstances into automatic inferences that the property is stolen. When a pawnbroker holds property, the business of buying and selling used goods creates a clear risk that items are moving through theft channels. The law acknowledges this by making it a presumption that property in a pawnbroker’s possession is stolen, unless proven otherwise. This helps focus investigations on potential theft and fencing rather than chasing innocent explanations.

Similarly, having two or more stolen credit cards is a strong, highly specific clue of theft activity. The likelihood that someone legitimately possesses multiple stolen cards is extremely low, so the law treats that possession as presumptive evidence that the cards are stolen property. This again supports the conclusion that the property is stolen and facilitates charging and investigation.

Because both scenarios meet the criteria for these presumptions, they both establish that the property is stolen.