People v. Netisingha

Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of theft and other financial crimes for allegedly buying merchandise he was led to believe was stolen and then selling it online. Property obtained by Defendant from undercover police investigator was not stolen, and thus a necessary element of the theft offense is absent. As convictions for theft are vacated, conviction for operating a continuing financial crime enterprise, which is based on existence of theft convictions, must also be vacated. Defendant's conviction for online sale of stolen property, because State did not prove that property was gained by unlawful means. (PIERCE and HYMAN, concurring.)