of people served
rated by clients
available to help
The trade in precious metals (like gold, silver, platinum) and scrap metal involves frequent transactions where individuals sell items for their material value. Unfortunately, these industries can become targets for individuals seeking to quickly dispose of stolen property, such as jewelry, catalytic converters, copper wire, or other metal goods obtained through theft, robbery, or carjacking. Recognizing this vulnerability and the potential for dealers to facilitate the conversion of stolen items into cash, Minnesota enacted Statute § 609.526. This law specifically criminalizes the act of precious metal or scrap metal dealers, or their employees, receiving, possessing, transferring, buying, or concealing stolen property (or property from robbery/carjacking) when they know or have reason to know the property was illicitly obtained.
This statute imposes a specific duty on those operating within these industries to be vigilant about the source of the metals they acquire. It holds dealers and their employees accountable not only if they have actual knowledge that property is stolen but also if the circumstances reasonably should have alerted them to its illicit origins (the “reason to know” standard). The law establishes distinct penalties based on the value of the improperly received property and includes enhancements for repeat offenses, signaling the state’s intent to deter these specific types of businesses from becoming conduits for fencing stolen goods and profiting from criminal activity directed at others’ property.
Precious Metal and Scrap Metal Dealers; Receiving Stolen Property, as defined by Minnesota Statute § 609.526, is a specific criminal offense targeting businesses and individuals within these particular industries. The crime occurs when a precious metal dealer, a scrap metal dealer, or any employee of such a dealer, engages in certain actions – specifically receiving, possessing, transferring, buying, or concealing – property that was obtained through theft, robbery, or carjacking. The crucial element is the dealer’s or employee’s state of mind: they must know, or have reason to know, that the property they are handling was stolen or obtained through robbery or carjacking.
This law recognizes the unique position these dealers hold as potential outlets for converting illegally obtained metal goods into cash. It goes beyond the general Receiving Stolen Property statute (§ 609.53) by applying specifically to defined precious metal and scrap metal dealers and their employees. The “reason to know” standard is significant, meaning dealers cannot simply turn a blind eye to suspicious circumstances surrounding a transaction. If the context, the nature of the property, the identity of the seller, or other factors should reasonably indicate the property is stolen, the dealer can be held liable even without direct proof of actual knowledge.
The specific crime addressing the handling of stolen goods by precious metal and scrap metal dealers is codified under Minnesota Statutes § 609.526. This section defines the relevant dealers, outlines the prohibited conduct related to stolen property (including property from robbery or carjacking), establishes the knowledge standard, and sets forth specific penalties based on property value and repeat offenses.
The law states:
609.526 PRECIOUS METAL AND SCRAP METAL DEALERS; RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY.
Subdivision 1. Definitions. As used in this section, the following terms have the meanings given:
(1) “precious metal dealer” has the meaning given in section 325F.731, subdivision 2; and
(2) “scrap metal dealer” has the meaning given in section 325E.21, subdivision 1.
Subd. 2. Crime described. Any precious metal dealer or scrap metal dealer or any person employed by a dealer, who receives, possesses, transfers, buys, or conceals any stolen property or property obtained by robbery or carjacking, knowing or having reason to know the property was stolen or obtained by robbery or carjacking, may be sentenced as follows:
(1) if the value of the property received, bought, or concealed is $1,000 or more, to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $50,000, or both;
(2) if the value of the property received, bought, or concealed is less than $1,000 but more than $500, to imprisonment for not more than three years or to payment of a fine of not more than $25,000, or both;
(3) if the value of the property received, bought, or concealed is $500 or less, to imprisonment for not more than 90 days or to payment of a fine of not more than $1,000, or both.
Any person convicted of violating this section a second or subsequent time within a period of one year may be sentenced as provided in clause (1).
To secure a conviction under Minnesota Statute § 609.526, the prosecution must prove each specific element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. These elements combine the identity of the actor, the nature of the property involved, the specific actions taken with the property, and the crucial mental state regarding the property’s illicit origins. Failure to establish any one of these components means the state has not met its legal burden, and a guilty verdict cannot be sustained under this statute targeting dealers.
Minnesota Statute § 609.526 establishes specific penalties for precious metal and scrap metal dealers, or their employees, convicted of handling stolen goods (or goods from robbery/carjacking) with the requisite knowledge. The penalties are tiered based on the value of the illicit property involved and include a significant enhancement for repeat offenses within a short timeframe, reflecting the seriousness with which the state views this conduct within these industries.
The statute outlines three primary tiers based on the value of the property received, bought, or concealed:
The statute includes a specific enhancement: Any person convicted of violating § 609.526 a second or subsequent time within a one-year period may be sentenced under the highest penalty tier (clause 1) – up to 10 years imprisonment and/or a $50,000 fine – regardless of the value of the property involved in the subsequent offense. This targets repeat offenders within these industries particularly harshly.
The crime under § 609.526 specifically targets dealers in precious metals and scrap metals who handle stolen goods. Real-world examples help clarify how the elements of the statute – being a dealer/employee, handling illicit property, and having knowledge or reason to know – might apply in practice. These scenarios illustrate situations where dealers might face charges due to negligence or willful blindness regarding the source of materials they purchase.
These examples underscore the importance of due diligence for dealers. The “reason to know” standard means they cannot ignore obvious red flags. Compliance with record-keeping requirements (often mandated by related statutes like § 325E.21 and § 325F.731-.744) can sometimes help demonstrate legitimate practices, while failure to comply might be used as evidence suggesting awareness or avoidance of knowledge about illicit origins.
A scrap metal dealer is approached by an individual selling ten catalytic converters late at night from the back of a van. The converters appear roughly cut, lack documentation, and the seller provides vague answers about where they came from. The price offered is significantly below typical scrap value. Despite these red flags (unusual quantity, rough condition, suspicious seller, low price), the dealer buys the converters without asking further questions or recording detailed seller information as required by law. Later, the converters are identified as having been stolen from vehicles in a nearby parking ramp.
The dealer could be charged under § 609.526. They are a scrap metal dealer who bought property later confirmed as stolen. The circumstances (quantity, condition, seller behavior, price, time of day) provided ample “reason to know” the converters were likely stolen, even without explicit confirmation. The penalty would depend on the total value of the converters, likely reaching felony levels.
An employee at a precious metal dealership (pawn shop/gold buyer) is presented with a collection of antique gold jewelry by a person claiming they inherited it. The seller seems nervous and lacks specific knowledge about the pieces. The employee notices some items match descriptions from recent burglary reports circulated by police. Despite this potential match and the seller’s nervousness, the employee proceeds with the purchase without contacting police or further verifying the seller’s story, paying cash. The jewelry is later confirmed stolen in a burglary.
The employee and potentially the dealership could face charges under § 609.526. The employee received/bought property obtained by theft (burglary). Seeing pieces matching burglary reports provided strong “reason to know,” if not actual knowledge, that the property was stolen. Proceeding with the transaction despite these red flags meets the mental state requirement. The penalty depends on the jewelry’s value.
A scrap metal yard employee accepts a large quantity of stripped copper wire, clearly identifiable as utility-grade wiring, from individuals known to have previous theft convictions. The wire shows signs of being burned to remove insulation, a common practice with stolen wire. The employee pays cash and avoids creating a detailed record. The wire is later traced back to recent thefts from utility substations and construction sites.
Here, the employee possessed/bought stolen property. The nature of the wire (utility-grade, burned insulation) combined with the sellers’ known history provided significant “reason to know” it was stolen. Failing to follow proper record-keeping might also be used as evidence of consciousness of guilt. The value would likely place this in the felony categories under § 609.526.
A licensed scrap metal dealer purchases a load of miscellaneous metal items (old appliances, pipes, car parts) from a homeowner doing a major cleanout. The homeowner provides identification, signs necessary paperwork, and the items appear consistent with typical household scrap. The dealer pays a fair market price based on weight and material type. Unknown to the dealer, one small, unidentifiable metal piece mixed in the load was actually stolen by the homeowner from a neighbor years ago.
In this scenario, a charge under § 609.526 against the dealer would likely fail. Although the dealer technically received a stolen item, there were no circumstances providing “reason to know” about that specific piece’s origin. The transaction appeared legitimate, proper procedures were followed, and there were no red flags regarding the bulk of the material or the seller. The required mental state (knowing or having reason to know) regarding the stolen nature of the property is absent.
Being charged under Minnesota Statute § 609.526 can have severe consequences for dealers and their employees, including felony convictions, substantial fines, and potential loss of business licenses. However, the prosecution must prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, including the crucial element that the dealer or employee knew or had reason to know the property was stolen, obtained by robbery, or carjacking. This provides significant avenues for defense.
An effective defense strategy often involves challenging the prosecution’s evidence regarding the defendant’s knowledge or the property’s origins. It might also involve demonstrating compliance with industry regulations and record-keeping requirements as evidence of good faith, or arguing that the defendant does not legally fall under the statutory definition of a dealer or employee. An attorney experienced with property crimes and industry regulations can analyze the specific facts to identify the strongest defenses available against these specialized charges.
This is a primary defense, directly attacking the mental state element (mens rea). The defense argues that the accused dealer or employee neither knew nor had reasonable grounds to believe the property was stolen or obtained through robbery/carjacking at the time of the transaction.
This defense challenges the prosecution’s assertion about the property’s origins. If the property handled by the dealer was not actually stolen or obtained via robbery/carjacking, then § 609.526 cannot apply.
The statute specifically applies only to “precious metal dealers,” “scrap metal dealers” (as defined in referenced statutes), or their employees. If the accused does not fit these specific definitions, they cannot be convicted under § 609.526, although they might potentially face charges under the general receiving stolen property statute (§ 609.53).
While not a complete defense on its own, evidence that the dealer diligently complied with all applicable state and local regulations regarding record-keeping, identification checks, holding periods, and reporting suspicious transactions can support an argument of good faith and lack of knowledge or reason to know.
Section 609.526 applies specifically to licensed or defined precious metal dealers, scrap metal dealers, and their employees. It recognizes their unique role and potential for handling stolen goods. Section 609.53 applies generally to any person who receives stolen property. Penalties and some specific elements may differ slightly.
The statute points to definitions in other laws. Generally, a precious metal dealer (§ 325F.731) deals in items containing gold, silver, or platinum. A scrap metal dealer (§ 325E.21) deals in ferrous/nonferrous scrap metals, often including items like copper wire, catalytic converters, and industrial scrap. Specific licensing or registration requirements may apply under those defining statutes.
It’s an objective standard. It means that based on the facts and circumstances surrounding the transaction, a reasonable person in the dealer’s position should have realized the property was likely stolen, even if the seller didn’t explicitly say so. Red flags might include obliterated serial numbers, unusually low prices, suspicious seller behavior, items inconsistent with the seller’s story, etc.
The statute applies to the dealer or any person employed by the dealer. An employee who knowingly or with reason to know handles stolen property can be charged directly. The dealer (owner/business) could potentially face charges as well, especially if they encouraged the behavior, were willfully blind, or failed to properly supervise employees regarding compliance.
Yes, Subdivision 2 explicitly includes property “stolen or property obtained by robbery or carjacking.” Receiving property known or reasonably known to be the proceeds of any of these crimes falls under this statute.
Penalties depend on the property value: Value $500 or less is a misdemeanor (up to 90 days/$1,000); Value over $500 up to $1,000 is a felony (up to 3 years/$25,000); Value $1,000 or more is a felony (up to 10 years/$50,000). A second conviction within one year triggers the highest penalty tier regardless of value.
No. If the value of the property is $500 or less, it is classified as a misdemeanor. However, values exceeding $500 result in felony charges, and repeat offenses within a year can also lead to felony sentencing.
The statute doesn’t explicitly reference the valuation method from § 609.52, but typically value would be based on the fair market value of the property at the time it was received by the dealer. For metals, this might relate to weight and current commodity prices, or the value of finished goods like jewelry.
Cooperation after the fact might be considered by the prosecutor or judge during plea negotiations or sentencing as a mitigating factor. However, it doesn’t automatically negate the crime if the dealer knew or had reason to know the property was stolen at the time they received, bought, or possessed it.
Yes, separate Minnesota statutes (§ 325E.21 for scrap metal, § 325F.731-.744 for precious metals) impose detailed record-keeping requirements on these dealers, including logging seller information, item descriptions, and sometimes holding periods. Failure to comply can result in separate penalties and may be used as circumstantial evidence in a § 609.526 prosecution.
Yes, very likely. A conviction for dealing in stolen property is a serious offense directly related to the integrity required for operating such a business. Local municipalities or state agencies issuing licenses for precious metal or scrap metal dealers would likely consider such a conviction grounds for license suspension or revocation.
Section 609.526 applies regardless of where the property was originally stolen, robbed, or carjacked. If a Minnesota dealer receives, buys, possesses, etc., property within Minnesota knowing or having reason to know it was illicitly obtained (even from out-of-state), they can be prosecuted under this statute.
The statute lists “receives, possesses, transfers, buys, or conceals.” An attempt might fall under general attempt laws (§ 609.17) if sufficient steps were taken, but § 609.526 itself primarily addresses completed acts of handling the property.
Convictions under § 609.526 (misdemeanor or felony) may be eligible for expungement under Minnesota’s general expungement laws, subject to meeting the required waiting periods (typically 2 years post-sentence for misdemeanors, 5 years for felonies) and other statutory criteria.
They should decline the transaction and consider reporting the suspicious activity to law enforcement. Purchasing property despite reasonable suspicion it is stolen exposes them to potential criminal liability under § 609.526. Following required record-keeping for declined transactions might also be advisable depending on local ordinances.
A conviction under Minnesota Statute § 609.526, specifically targeting precious metal and scrap metal dealers handling stolen goods, carries severe and often career-ending long-term consequences beyond the immediate criminal penalties. The conviction strikes at the heart of the trust required to operate within these regulated industries.
Most convictions under § 609.526 (for property valued over $500 or repeat offenses) result in a felony record. This permanent mark signifies involvement in handling stolen property within a business context, carrying a significant stigma. It appears on background checks, creating major barriers to future employment (especially in regulated or trust-based industries), securing housing, obtaining loans, and participating fully in civic life. The specific nature of the crime reflects poorly on business ethics and personal integrity.
Perhaps the most devastating consequence for a dealer is the likely loss of their business license. State laws and local ordinances governing precious metal and scrap metal dealers typically require licensees to maintain good character and comply with laws preventing dealing in stolen goods. A conviction under § 609.526 provides clear grounds for regulatory bodies to revoke or refuse renewal of essential operating licenses. For employees, the conviction makes future employment within these industries, or any field requiring background checks, extremely difficult, potentially destroying their livelihood.
Even if a dealer avoids license revocation, a conviction under § 609.526 will almost certainly lead to heightened scrutiny from law enforcement and regulatory agencies. They may face more frequent inspections, stricter enforcement of record-keeping rules, and a general presumption of suspicion surrounding their operations. This increased oversight can be costly and burdensome, making it difficult to operate profitably and potentially leading to further violations or penalties if compliance isn’t perfect. The conviction paints a target on the business.
Beyond criminal penalties and licensing issues, dealers convicted under § 609.526 may face civil lawsuits from the original owners of the stolen property seeking damages. Furthermore, the stolen property itself, along with potentially other assets used in or derived from the criminal activity (like vehicles or equipment used to process the stolen metals), could be subject to civil or criminal forfeiture proceedings initiated by the state. This can result in significant additional financial losses for the dealer or employee on top of criminal fines and restitution.
Defending against charges under § 609.526 requires more than just general criminal defense knowledge; it demands familiarity with the specific regulations governing precious metal and scrap metal dealers in Minnesota (like Minn. Stat. §§ 325E.21 and 325F.731-.744). A knowledgeable attorney understands the legal definitions of “dealer,” the detailed record-keeping requirements, and standard industry practices. This allows them to effectively argue whether the defendant legally qualifies as a dealer under the statute, whether they complied with relevant regulations (which can support a good faith defense), or whether law enforcement is misinterpreting industry norms in alleging “reason to know.” This specialized context is crucial for building an effective defense.
The mental state element – proving the dealer or employee knew or had reason to know the property was stolen – is often the most contestable part of a § 609.526 prosecution. A criminal defense attorney focuses intensely on this element, scrutinizing the specific circumstances the state claims constituted “red flags.” They challenge weak inferences and argue against applying hindsight. The attorney presents evidence demonstrating the transaction appeared normal, that the seller presented plausible credentials, that the price was fair market value, or that the dealer followed established procedures designed to prevent acquiring stolen goods. Successfully creating reasonable doubt about whether the defendant truly knew or should have reasonably known the property was illicit is key to defeating the charge.
The prosecution must prove the property handled by the dealer was, in fact, stolen or obtained via robbery/carjacking. A defense attorney doesn’t take this assertion at face value. They investigate the alleged predicate crime, examining police reports, victim statements, and property identification evidence. They look for inconsistencies, potential ownership disputes, or breaks in the chain of custody linking the property found at the dealership to the reported crime. If the attorney can demonstrate the property wasn’t actually stolen, or that the prosecution cannot definitively prove the specific items handled by the dealer were the proceeds of the alleged crime, the § 609.526 charge fails.
Given the severe felony penalties and devastating professional consequences associated with a § 609.526 conviction, negotiating a favorable resolution is often a primary goal. An experienced attorney assesses the strength of the prosecution’s case and identifies leverage points (like weak evidence on knowledge or questionable proof of property origin). They engage with the prosecutor to potentially secure a dismissal, a plea to a less serious offense (like a misdemeanor under the general receiving stolen property statute § 609.53, or even a non-theft offense), or an agreement that avoids or minimizes jail time and potentially lessens the impact on business licenses. Their ability to negotiate effectively, based on a thorough case analysis, is critical in mitigating the potentially career-ending impact of these charges.
