U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

Problem-Specific Guides Series

No. 57

Stolen Goods Markets

Michael Sutton

www.cops.usdoj.gov

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides Series

Guide No. 57

Stolen Goods Markets

Michael Sutton

This project was supported by cooperative agreement 

2007-CK-WX-K008 by the U.S. Department of Justice Office 

of Community Oriented Policing Services (the COPS Office). 

The opinions contained herein are those of the author and do not 

necessarily represent the official position of the U.S. Department 

of Justice. References to specific companies, products, or services 

should not be considered an endorsement of the product by the 

author or the U.S. Department of Justice. Rather, the references are 

illustrations to supplement discussion of the issues.

The Internet references cited in this publication were valid as of 

June 2009. Given that URLs and web sites are in constant flux, 

neither the author nor the COPS Office can vouch for their 

current validity.

© 2009 Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, Inc. The U.S. 

Department of Justice reserves a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and 

irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use, and 

authorize others to use, this publication for Federal Government 

purposes. This publication may be freely distributed and used for 

noncommercial and educational purposes.

www.cops.usdoj.gov

ISBN: 978-1-935676-09-6

March 2010

About the P About the Problem-Specific Guides Series roblem-Specific Guides Series i

About the Problem-Specific Guide Series

The Problem-Specific Guides summarize knowledge about how 

police can reduce the harm caused by specific crime and disorder 

problems. They are guides to prevention and to improving the 

overall response to incidents, not to investigating offenses or 

handling specific incidents. Neither do they cover all of the 

technical details about how to implement specific responses. The 

guides are written for police—of whatever rank or assignment—

who must address the specific problem the guides cover. The guides 

will be most useful to officers who:

•	 Understand basic problem-oriented policing principles and 

methods. The guides are not primers in problem-oriented 

policing. They deal only briefly with the initial decision to 

focus on a particular problem, methods to analyze the problem, 

and means to assess the results of a problem-oriented policing 

project. They are designed to help police decide how best to 

analyze and address a problem they have already identified. 

(A companion series of Problem-Solving Tools guides has been 

produced to aid in various aspects of problem analysis and 

assessment.)

•	 Can look at a problem in depth. Depending on the complexity 

of the problem, you should be prepared to spend perhaps weeks, 

or even months, analyzing and responding to it. Carefully 

studying a problem before responding helps you design the right 

strategy, one that is most likely to work in your community. 

You should not blindly adopt the responses others have used; 

you must decide whether they are appropriate to your local 

situation. What is true in one place may not be true elsewhere; 

what works in one place may not work everywhere.

•	 Are willing to consider new ways of doing police business. 

The guides describe responses that other police departments 

have used or that researchers have tested. While not all of these 

responses will be appropriate to your particular problem, they 

should help give a broader view of the kinds of things you 

could do. You may think you cannot implement some of these 

responses in your jurisdiction, but perhaps you can. In many 

places, when police have discovered a more effective response, 
ii Stolen Goods Markets

they have succeeded in having laws and policies changed, 

improving the response to the problem. (A companion series of 

Response Guides has been produced to help you understand how 

commonly-used police responses work on a variety of problems.) 

•	 Understand the value and the limits of research knowledge.

For some types of problems, a lot of useful research is available 

to the police; for other problems, little is available. Accordingly, 

some guides in this series summarize existing research whereas 

other guides illustrate the need for more research on that 

particular problem. Regardless, research has not provided 

definitive answers to all the questions you might have about the 

problem. The research may help get you started in designing 

your own responses, but it cannot tell you exactly what to do. 

This will depend greatly on the particular nature of your local 

problem. In the interest of keeping the guides readable, not 

every piece of relevant research has been cited, nor has every 

point been attributed to its sources. To have done so would have 

overwhelmed and distracted the reader. The references listed at 

the end of each guide are those drawn on most heavily; they are 

not a complete bibliography of research on the subject. 

•	 Are willing to work with others to find effective solutions 

to the problem. The police alone cannot implement many of 

the responses discussed in the guides. They must frequently 

implement them in partnership with other responsible private 

and public bodies including other government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, private businesses, public utilities, 

community groups, and individual citizens. An effective 

problem-solver must know how to forge genuine partnerships 

with others and be prepared to invest considerable effort in 

making these partnerships work. Each guide identifies particular 

individuals or groups in the community with whom police 

might work to improve the overall response to that problem. 

Thorough analysis of problems often reveals that individuals 

and groups other than the police are in a stronger position to 

address problems and that police ought to shift some greater 

responsibility to them to do so. Response Guide No. 3, Shifting 

and Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety Problems, provides 

further discussion of this topic.
About the Problem-Specific Guides Series iii

The COPS Office defines community policing as “a philosophy 

that promotes organizational strategies, which support the 

systematic use of partnerships and problem-solving techniques, 

to proactively address the immediate conditions that give rise to 

public safety issues such as crime, social disorder, and fear of crime.” 

These guides emphasize problem-solving and police-community 

partnerships in the context of addressing specific public safety 

problems. For the most part, the organizational strategies that can 

facilitate problem-solving and police-community partnerships vary 

considerably and discussion of them is beyond the scope of these 

guides.

These guides have drawn on research findings and police practices 

in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New 

Zealand, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia. Even though laws, 

customs and police practices vary from country to country, it is 

apparent that the police everywhere experience common problems. 

In a world that is becoming increasingly interconnected, it is 

important that police be aware of research and successful practices 

beyond the borders of their own countries.

Each guide is informed by a thorough review of the research 

literature and reported police practice, and each guide is 

anonymously peer-reviewed by a line police officer, a police 

executive and a researcher prior to publication. The review process 

is independently managed by the COPS Office, which solicits the 

reviews. 
iv Stolen Goods Markets

For more information about problem-oriented policing, visit the 

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing online at www.popcenter.org. 

This website offers free online access to:

•	 The Problem-Specific Guides series

•	 The companion Response Guides and Problem-Solving Tools series 

•	 Special publications on crime analysis and on policing terrorism

•	 Instructional information about problem-oriented policing and 

related topics

•	 An interactive problem-oriented policing training exercise

•	 An interactive Problem Analysis Module

•	 Online access to important police research and practices

•	 Information about problem-oriented policing conferences and 

award programs. 
Acknowledgments v

Acknowledgments

The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police are produced by the 

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, whose officers are Michael 

S. Scott (Director), Ronald V. Clarke (Associate Director), and 

Graeme R. Newman (Associate Director). In addition to the 

primary author, other project team members, COPS Office staff, 

and anonymous peer reviewers contributed to each guide by 

proposing text, recommending research, and offering suggestions 

on matters of format and style. 

The project team that developed the guide series comprised 

Herman Goldstein (University of Wisconsin Law School), 

Ronald V. Clarke (Rutgers University), John E. Eck (University 

of Cincinnati), Michael S. Scott (University of Wisconsin Law 

School), Rana Sampson (Police Consultant), and Deborah Lamm 

Weisel (North Carolina State University). 

Members of the San Diego; National City, California; and 

Savannah, Georgia police departments provided feedback on the 

guide’s format and style in the early stages of the project.

Debra Cohen, PhD oversaw the project for the COPS Office. 

Phyllis Schultze conducted research for the guide at Rutgers 

University’s Criminal Justice Library. Nancy Leach coordinated 

the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing’s production process. 

Suzanne Fregly edited this guide.

Contents vii

contents

About the Problem-Specific Guide Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .v

The Problem of Stolen Goods Markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

What This Guide Does and Does Not Cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

General Description of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Harms Caused by Stolen Goods Markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Factors Contributing to Stolen Goods Markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Transactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Supply and Demand—The Key Issue in Most Thefts . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Commonly Stolen and Sold Goods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Stolen Goods Market Locations and Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Stolen Goods Buyers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Public Tolerance of Stolen Goods Markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Links with Illicit Drug Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Stolen Goods Market Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Sellers’ Dilemmas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Fences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Most-Basic Fencing Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Operation Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Understanding Your Local Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Asking the Right Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Stolen Goods Markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

Locations and Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

Measuring Your Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

Outcome Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

Process Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

Responses to the Problem of Stolen Goods Markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

General Considerations for an Effective Response Strategy . . . . . . . . .22

Specific Responses To Reduce Stolen Goods Markets . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

Responses With Limited Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
viii Stolen Goods Markets

Appendix A: Summary of Responses to Stolen Goods Markets . . . . . . . . . .29

Appendix B: Sample Stolen Goods Market Offender Interview . . . . . . . . . .33

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

About the Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53
The Problem of Stolen Goods Markets 1

The Problem of Stolen Goods Markets

What This Guide Does and Does Not Cover

This guide addresses the problem of stolen goods markets. The 

guide begins by describing the problem, then provides advice on 

how best to analyze local, national, or international stolen goods 

markets; reviews tactics that you can use to detect those involved in 

stealing, dealing, and using stolen goods; and suggests ways to assess 

the tactics’ likely effectiveness in specific situations and locations. 

The ultimate aim of reducing stolen goods markets is to make it 

more difficult and risky for people to trade in stolen goods and 

thereby discourage stealing in the first place. 

Most burglars and other prolific thieves steal to raise money, and 

to do so they need to sell whatever they steal. To obtain money by 

stealing things, the prolific and relatively “successful” thief must 

routinely complete two objectives without getting caught. The first 

objective is to steal valuable items. The second objective is to sell or 

trade the stolen goods. Ultimately, the prolific thief’s main aim is to 

acquire something else—often drugs or alcohol—with the money 

gained from selling the stolen goods. While police and prosecutors 

commonly think of this scenario as comprising two crimes—one 

being theft and the other receiving stolen goods—from the thieves’ 

standpoint, they haven’t completed the action until they’ve 

acquired what they ultimately desire. Understood this way, the 

theft is only the beginning of the crime, not the end of it.1 While 

other theft-related problem-oriented guides address thwarting the 

thief’s first objective, this guide addresses the second objective.

Those who knowingly buy stolen goods do not have recourse to 

legal remedies and so serious violence may be used as a means of 

criminal dispute resolution.2 Stolen goods markets are but one 

aspect of the larger set of problems related to property theft and 

illicit markets. This guide is limited to addressing the particular 

harms stolen goods markets create, with a focus on ordinary 

consumer goods. Some specialty stolen goods markets, such as those 

dealing in firearms, cultural artifacts, art, or endangered species, 
2 Stolen Goods Markets

have unique features calling for separate analyses and different 

responses. Related problems not directly addressed in this guide, 

each of which requires a separate analysis, include the following:

Property theft problems

•	 burglary

•	 robbery

•	 general theft

Market-related problems

•	 illicit drugs markets

•	 prostitution markets 

•	 human trafficking markets 

•	 child pornography markets

•	 pirated software, music, and film media markets

•	 fake goods markets

•	 illicit diamond markets

•	 endangered species markets 

•	 illicit antiques, art, and cultural artifacts markets

•	 illicit firearms markets

Some of these related problems are covered in other guides in this 

series, all of which are listed at the end of this guide. For the most 

up-to-date listing of current and future guides, see www.popcenter.org. 

This guide is designed to help police officers and other officials 

reduce varied theft problems with different resource levels and in 

various locations by promoting tailor-made solutions to specific 

local problems. 

General Description of the Problem

Stolen goods markets facilitate the demand that drives much 

property theft. Even though stolen goods dealers and consumers 

create the demand for stolen goods, police and crime reduction 

efforts remain firmly focused on thieves.3 Police agencies close 

many property crime investigations once they arrest the thieves, 

and pay less attention to tracking the stolen property.4
The Problem of Stolen Goods Markets 3

Many stolen goods markets are so clandestine, they are harder 

to research and police than drug trafficking, theft, and violence, 

for instance.5 However, much stolen goods trading goes on in 

relatively plain view, such as where goods are hawked openly on 

the streets or in pawn- and secondhand shops. At least some stolen 

goods markets are clearly visible, so long as you know what you are 

looking for and understand the criminal dynamics of what you see.6 

Gathering sufficient evidence to prosecute the stolen goods 

middleman—the fence—is difficult as fences often hide their 

illegitimate activities behind legitimate business fronts. Professional 

fences know how to do this well and can operate for years with 

impunity.7

Harms Caused by Stolen Goods Markets

Stolen goods markets cause a number of social harms. Some local 

stolen goods markets are linked to larger and more sophisticated 

organized criminal enterprises. Those who buy in stolen goods 

markets create a demand for their own victimization and also 

fuel the victimization of others. And since theft is not evenly 

distributed, legitimate merchants and residents in high-crime 

areas are either refused theft insurance or else pay considerably 

higher premiums. The price of goods in shops reflects profits lost 

to thieves and stolen goods markets, and merchants who refuse 

to trade in stolen goods are often undercut and lose business to 

those who do. Meanwhile, the consequent fear of crime creates 

uncertainty and discourages business investment, population 

stability, and growth necessary for local economies to thrive.8

Finally, because those involved in stolen goods markets tend not to 

resort to the law to resolve their disputes, for fear of being found 

out themselves, they often resort to violence to resolve them.9

Factors Contributing to Stolen Goods Markets

Understanding the factors that contribute to your problem will 

help you frame your own local analysis questions, determine good 

effectiveness measures, recognize key intervention points, and select 

appropriate responses. 
4 Stolen Goods Markets

Transactions

Stolen goods trading typically involves several steps, beginning with 

the theft itself and culminating in an end-consumer’s obtaining 

the stolen goods. Understanding the actions offenders take and 

challenges they face in each step will help you design methods to 

disrupt the process at several points in the crime process. Figure 1 

depicts these steps.

Figure 1. Chain of transactions in stolen goods markets (modified from Cornish, 1994).

Supply and Demand— 

The Key Issue in Most Thefts

As with any market, the relationship between supply and demand 

for stolen goods can be complex. Generally, the demand for stolen 

goods increases the incidence of theft.§ This makes sense because, 

for the most part, thieves won’t steal goods unless they first know or 

believe other people will buy or trade for them.10 General awareness 

that many business owners and members of the wider public are 

willing to buy stolen goods motivates thieves to start and continue 

stealing.11 Young thieves learn from their families, neighbors, and 

peers about their community’s willingness to buy stolen goods. 

Knowing who buys stolen goods and how to deal with them makes 

stealing a viable choice for some young people growing up in less 

wealthy areas.12

§The supply-and-demand relationship 

is not always this simple. The 

relationship between people’s 

willingness to buy stolen goods and 

others’ readiness to steal them is 

sometimes complex (Ferman, Henry, 

and Hoyman, 1987).
The Problem of Stolen Goods Markets 5

Once thieves know people are generally willing to buy stolen 

goods, stolen goods markets are mainly fuelled by thieves’ offering 

goods for sale, rather than by proactive demand from dealers or 

consumers.13 Thieves’ offers to sell stolen goods have the greatest 

influence on how stolen goods markets operate. This is because 

most dealers and consumers do not actively seek out stolen goods: 

someone needs to offer these items to them.14 Strangers frequently 

offer small-business owners stolen goods.15 

Sometimes thieves steal items to order. This means they are asked 

to supply particular products or quantities by theft. Prolific fences 

tend to encourage thieves to increase their offending in this way. 

But stealing to order is not as common as stealing to offer.

16

Commonly Stolen and Sold Goods

Knowledge of the “standing demand” for stolen goods affects the 

type of goods stolen, depending on what is most in demand at the 

time, and can at times lead to problem crime waves when thieves 

target particular highly sought items. Statistical research proves that 

most thieves have an ever-changing hierarchy of goods that they 

prefer to steal. Research with thieves themselves reveals that they 

rarely hoard stolen goods for more than an hour or two, at most, 

since they seek as near to immediate cash returns as possible—and 

want to avoid getting caught in possession.17 This means that 

thieves are unlikely to steal and hoard goods that they do not 

currently know to be in high demand on the off chance that they 

will be saleable in the future. Since most thieves steal because they 

want money in a hurry, at the top of their list is cash, followed by 

items that they can easily and quickly sell for relatively high prices, 

such as jewelry and high-tech home entertainment equipment.18 
6 Stolen Goods Markets

Understanding what makes products attractive to thieves will 

help you anticipate new theft targets, and consequently what new 

products are likely to become popular in stolen goods markets.19

So-called hot products typically have one or more of the following 

attributes that can be summarized by the acronym CRAVED, in 

that they are the following:

Concealable

Removable

Available

Valuable

Enjoyable

Disposable20 

The more of these attributes a thing has, the more attractive it is 

for someone to steal it. However, because we know that prolific 

thieves rarely steal items for their own use, the last three attributes 

are the most important because they relate to items’ worth and not 

just to their portability. It is this worth of items that makes them 

disposable as products that thieves can sell or swap for drugs. 

The demand for and prices of goods in legitimate markets 

influences what products are hot in stolen goods markets.21

Knowing, for example, what retail goods shoplifters are stealing, 

while perhaps not too important to police from a criminal 

investigation standpoint, might be quite important from a crime 

prevention standpoint, because shoplifting is often a gateway crime 

to more-serious theft and a fallback crime for prolific burglars to 

support their drug use.22

Stolen Goods Market Locations and Times

Although theft can occur any place where there is something to 

steal, much burglary and other theft are concentrated in particular 

areas, and thieves prey more often upon particular types of people 

in those areas.23 Likewise, in both the United Kingdom and the 

United States, stolen goods markets can occur anywhere. But 
The Problem of Stolen Goods Markets 7

once again, they tend to be concentrated in the least affluent 

areas.24 Accordingly, stolen goods markets are one of the major 

contributing factors to criminal victimization in less-affluent areas, 

since thieves prefer not to travel far when selling stolen goods.

Thieves generally prefer to sell stolen goods locally,25 and they sell 

most stolen goods within 30 minutes of their theft.26 Therefore, a 

concentration of local thefts might (but not necessarily) indicate 

the relatively close proximity of a local market for those goods. 

It must be noted, however, that while this is something worth 

exploring in the first instance, it should not be done at the expense 

of neglecting other possibly more important markets farther afield. 

Stolen goods trading takes place at odd times of the day and night 

as much as it does during normal business hours.27

Stolen Goods Buyers

In addition to professional fences, average citizens buy stolen 

goods. At least in the United Kingdom, buying stolen goods, like 

many other offenses, is a crime most often committed by those who 

are young, single, male, relatively unskilled, and living in relatively 

deprived areas.28 These, of course, are simply those who are, overall, 

statistically the most likely to be offered and to buy stolen goods. 

At any time, business owners who are not professional fences may 

buy stolen goods. The same is true for tradespeople and anyone else 

within any population of “ordinary folks” who find it hard to resist 

the chance of a bargain with no questions asked.

Public Tolerance of Stolen Goods Markets

Whereas most citizens are intolerant of thieves and of stealing, they 

tend to be more tolerant of stolen goods buyers and sellers because 

they are seen as entrepreneurs providing the valuable local service 

of making goods available at bargain prices.29 In addition, many 

so called “ordinary folks” ask no questions, or accept the standard 

“it fell off a truck” lines, when offered deeply discounted valuables. 

Even if they do not buy, most are unlikely to report people selling 

goods in this way.30 Police cannot afford to ignore the prevailing 

community attitudes toward buying stolen goods.31
8 Stolen Goods Markets

Links with Illicit Drug Use 

In the United Kingdom, some 29 percent of arrested thieves are 

heroin or cocaine users, and these are the most prolific offenders, 

probably responsible for more than three-fifths of the illegal income 

generated by selling stolen goods.32 However, drug dealers are often 

reluctant to exchange drugs for stolen goods.33 This means that 

stolen goods markets play at least as important a part as regular illegal 

hard drug use in explaining high theft rates and, therefore, represent 

an equally important opportunity for crime reduction initiatives. 

That said, drug dealers do accept certain kinds of property in 

exchange for drugs, and they also buy stolen property.34 Drug dealers 

are known to buy, in particular, stolen expensive designer wear and 

jewelry for their own use.35 Buying and selling stolen goods is, for 

many offenders, a gateway offense into buying and selling drugs.36

Stolen Goods Market Types

Stolen goods markets tend to have particular local, as well as 

national, characteristics in terms of what thieves steal and how 

those involved conduct transactions.37 Consequently, reducing 

these markets calls for locally tailored solutions. 

There are six stolen goods market types that are distinctive in the 

ways that thieves, dealers, and consumers operate.38 No one market 

type is more serious or important than another in terms of the role 

it plays in promoting theft. The six market types are as follows:

•	 Commercial fence supplies. Thieves sell stolen goods to 

commercial fences operating out of shops, such as jewelers, 

pawnbrokers, and secondhand dealers.

•	 Residential fence supplies. Thieves sell stolen goods 

(particularly electrical goods) to fences, usually at the fences’ 

homes.

•	 Network sales. Thieves pass stolen goods on, and each 

participant adds a little to the price until a consumer is found. 

This may involve a residential fence, and the buyer may be 

the final consumer or may sell the goods on again through 

friendship networks.
The Problem of Stolen Goods Markets 9

•	 Commercial sales. Commercial fences most usually pose openly 

as legitimate business owners while secretly selling stolen goods 

for a profit, either directly to the (innocent) consumer or, more 

rarely, to another distributor who thinks he or she can resell the 

goods for additional profit. 

•	 Hawking. Thieves sell directly to consumers in places such as 

bars and pubs or door to door (e.g., shoplifters sell cigarettes, 

toiletries, clothes or food).

•	 “eSelling.” This market type involves selling stolen goods 

through private websites such as Craigslist or through online 

auction sites such as eBay. This gives thieves access to buyers 

they would not otherwise reach. Thieves may sell goods directly 

to the public online or else sell through a business fence in an 

offline commercial fence supplies market. The business fence 

then sells the goods using the Internet.§

By and large, offenders—particularly those operating within 

network sales markets—are flexible in how they use available 

markets.

Sellers’ Dilemmas

Understanding the dilemmas those dealing in stolen goods face is 

useful in designing prevention and control strategies. 

The stolen goods seller’s dilemma is that to increase his chances of 

making a profit, he has to increase his risks of getting caught. The 

seller can choose to sell only to people he knows, which reduces 

his risks of getting ripped off or detected but restricts his sales and 

buying opportunities. Or the seller can sell to strangers, which 

allows him access to more potential customers but also increases his 

chances of getting arrested or ripped off.39 This dilemma applies to 

both the thief and the dealer (the fence), but the business-owning 

commercial fence also has to simultaneously gain the confidence 

of thieves with whom they deal, while maintaining a clean public 

image.40

These conflicting demands of access and security determine to a 

large extent the structure of local stolen goods markets. 

§For further information on “eSelling,” 

see Wilbur (2004), Skelton (2005), 

Tuckey (2007), Talamo et al. (2007), 

and Newman and Clarke (2003). See 

Davis (1998) for a useful guide for 

police officers investigating Internetfacilitated crime.
10 Stolen Goods Markets

Fences

Some stolen goods dealers are professional fences who conceal 

their activities behind legitimate business fronts. Others are not, 

but operate instead out of their own homes or else on the move, 

using, for example, networks of associates linked by mobile phone. 

In other markets, consumers and innocent dealers may buy directly 

from thieves rather than through a fence. 

Fences tend to specialize in selling in particular market types, 

but some sell in more than one market type. For example, fences 

operating in commercial fence supplies markets deal at home as 

residential fences, but also be involved in network sales41 or even 

“eSelling,” particularly where stolen items not sold through their 

legitimate retail business are being traded.

There are several types of fences, including the following very 

useful typology constructed by Lewis (2006) to outline the specific 

dynamics of different types of commercial fencing operations:

•	 Level-1 fence: A thief sells to a level-1 fence (often a storeowner 

such as a pawnbroker or jeweler), who then sells the goods in his 

store or else sells them to another fence.

•	 Level-2 (wholesale) fence: A level-2 fence buys from a level-1 

fence and then often cleans up and/or repackages the goods 

to make it look as though they came legitimately from the 

manufacturer. These are very clandestine operations that are 

perhaps most likely to be found when working back from a level3 fence bust (see below). Those who operate stolen car rings also 

fall within this fencing subtype.

•	 Level-3 fence: A level-3 fence takes repackaged goods from 

level-2 wholesale fences and diverts the goods to retailers. At 

times, major retailers will find themselves buying back the very 

goods that were stolen from them.42 Level-3 fences have been 

known to sell perfume, cosmetics, razor blades and shoplifted 

designer goods in this way. 43
The Problem of Stolen Goods Markets 11

Commercial fences use their business front to recruit thieves who 

come in offering them stolen goods. (This is the commercial fence 

supplies market operating at Level-1.) They also mix stolen goods 

in with their legitimate stock. Somewhat perversely, this helps to 

sell legitimate stock, as people think they are getting a genuine 

bargain if goods are stolen, even when they are not. (This is the 

commercial sales market at Level-1.)44

Most-Basic Fencing Principles

Understanding the unique dynamics of particular offending can 

help identify and also understand the behavior of less visible 

offenses and offenders that facilitate more visible crime problems 

such as theft. For a professional fence to operate and avoid arrest, 

he needs to coach promising thieves to avoid detection and 

maximize profits. He must conceal his stolen goods trading behind 

a legitimate trading front. He should remain willfully ignorant 

about whether the goods that he buys from other dealers are stolen. 

He must try to offload stolen goods quickly to avoid detection, but 

also know when it is safer to store them and sell them later. He 

must avoid getting caught in possession of stolen goods, but if he is, 

he should know how to make it difficult for police to prove that he 

knows the goods are stolen. He must be careful not to work with 

police informants and limit the number of people who know about 

his business. He must never admit to knowingly trading in stolen 

goods if the police question him. And, if all this fails, he must have 

money for a good lawyer if police arrest him.45 

Operation Methods

Inexperienced thieves tend to sell mostly by hawking to strangers 

in public places or selling to only one residential fence they know.46

Problem drug users in particular commonly find it hard to find 

fences who will deal with them.47 The most experienced and 

prolific offenders tend to have the most ways of selling stolen goods 

in a variety of markets.48 A study of experienced residential burglars 

found that they most often sold stolen goods to known fences, 

friends, or relatives rather than strangers.49

Understanding Your Local Problem 13

Understanding Your Local Problem

All the information provided above constitutes only a generalized 

description of stolen goods markets. You must combine the basic §See Pr

facts with a more specific understanding of your local problem. 3, Inter

Analyzing the local problem carefully will help you design a more Police 

effective response strategy. guidan

§§You 

To understand the dynamics of the stolen goods markets in about s

your own area, interview known offenders and informants.§ It is and op

researc important to talk with those who steal, sell, deal, and use stolen 

property, as well as those who might know about them. See 

Appendix B for a sample offender interview relating to stolen 

goods markets. You should routinely solicit the following groups 

for information: 

•	 current, recently active, and ex-offenders (thieves, burglars, 

fences, drug dealers, drug users);

•	 prisoners (convicted of burglary, theft, handling stolen goods 

and drug use or dealing); and

•	 confidential informants.

You should also ensure that the general public can easily and 

confidentially report suspicious activity related to stolen goods to 

the police.50

Evaluation of the Market Reduction Approach in England found 

that reviewing old case files and interviewing officers in the 

field can also reveal intelligence about offenders and fencing hot 

spots.51,

§§

Where possible, you should analyze at least a few years’ worth 

of such data, because this will reduce the likelihood of making 

strategic decisions based on temporary and uncharacteristic data 

peaks or troughs.52 In addition, you should analyze crime location 

data for fencing incidents using crime pattern analysis techniques 

on geographic information system software.

oblem-Solving Tools Guide No. 

viewing Offenders To Inform 

Problem-Solving, for further 

ce.

can analyze qualitative data 

tolen goods market locations 

erators using qualitative 

h software.
14 Stolen Goods Markets

The importance of both quantitative and qualitative analysis of the 

kind recommended here cannot be overstressed if scarce resources 

are to be best deployed where they are most likely to be effective. 

And the SARA model of problem solving (Scanning, Analysis, 

Response and Assessment) should be used in order to reach the 

right solution to your particular theft problem. 

The kind of research outlined above may not be possible for police 

officers facing competing demands for their time. This particular 

expertise/time not available risk factor should be analyzed very 

early on in the planning and design of your stolen goods market 

reduction initiative. Possible solutions to this, if it is a foreseeable 

problem, may be to work in formal partnership with freelance 

academics or some other kind of crime analysis unit such as in 

university, police or government departments.

The best solution to a local stolen goods problem may not be 

the most immediately feasible and intuitive one, but may instead 

come as a unique breakthrough borne of complex and painstaking 

analysis.

Stakeholders

In addition to local criminal justice agencies, the following groups 

have an interest in the stolen goods trading problem, and you 

should consider the contribution they might make to gathering 

information about the problem and responding to it:

•	 Business associations (e.g., representing retail merchants, bars, 

scrap dealers) have an interest in preventing merchants who 

trade in stolen goods from undercutting legitimate merchants’ 

market share and may know which merchants are suspected to 

be trading in such goods.

•	 Retail loss prevention professionals have an interest in reducing 

losses from diversions of legitimately purchased wholesale 

merchandise into the illegitimate stolen goods markets.

•	 Crime reporting hotlines (e.g., Crime Stoppers) may have 

information on particular suspected thieves and fences, as well as 

emerging trends.
Understanding Your Local Problem 15

•	 Internet governance and crime-reporting clearinghouses.§ 

•	 Tax authorities are interested in stemming lost tax revenue 

attributable to stolen-goods trading and may have information 

about suspicious business enterprises.

•	 Regulatory agencies know what sorts of regulatory laws might 

apply to businesses suspected of trading in stolen goods.

•	 State and national police agencies might know how local stolen 

goods markets are connected to larger, more sophisticated 

criminal enterprises.

Asking the Right Questions

The following are some critical questions you should ask in 

analyzing your particular stolen goods markets problem, even if 

the answers are not always readily available. Your answers to these 

and other questions will help you choose the most appropriate set 

of responses later on. Some of these questions can be answered 

only through in-depth interviews with thieves. It is important to 

note that these questions should be asked before new anti-fencing 

initiatives begin and then again once they have had a chance to bite. 

By way of example, after an anti-fencing initiative, any recorded 

falls in theft, accompanied by (1) a decrease in perceptions of ease 

of selling and buying among offenders and/or (2) increases in 

risks and decreases in the perception of the rewards of selling and 

buying stolen goods, would indicate that it is the police operations 

that have had the desired effect on falling theft levels rather than 

some other cause. Such measures are most important in finding out 

what works in reducing stolen goods markets and when seeking to 

attribute causes to falling theft figures. Similarly, such qualitative 

data may also explain increases in theft levels if offenders reveal the 

existence of new buoyant markets for stolen goods.

§See www.e-victims.org
16 Stolen Goods Markets

Stolen Goods Markets

•	 How much stolen goods trading is occurring in your 

jurisdiction? (Remember that official police recorded crime data 

are of little help here since the public rarely report such offenses, 

and many receiving-stolen-goods cases are actually cases in 

which thieves have pled guilty to a lesser charge when evidence 

of the original theft is weak.53) Therefore, qualitative data of the 

kind recommended in the Understanding Your Local Problem 

section above are invaluable.

•	 What types of stolen goods markets are dealing in particular 

types of stolen goods?

•	 Are certain types of markets shrinking or even shutting down? 

Are new types of markets emerging?

•	 Where are the markets for particular types of stolen goods?

•	 What is the typical discount rate for stolen goods? Is this 

increasing or decreasing?

•	 What proportion of goods stolen in your jurisdiction do you 

estimate are then sold in stolen goods markets, as opposed to 

being used by the thief, recovered by police, or discarded?

•	 How easy and quick is it for thieves to find a buyer for their 

stolen goods?

•	 How easy and quick is it for fences to find a buyer for their 

stolen goods?

•	 How do thieves transport stolen goods to fences? 

•	 What do thieves typically do with property immediately after 

stealing it (e.g., sell it or trade it immediately on the street, hide 

it while searching for a buyer, sell it immediately to a pawnshop 

or fence)?

•	 How often do thieves need to dump goods that they could sell?
Understanding Your Local Problem 17

Offenders

Thieves

•	 Who deals in particular types of stolen goods, which markets are 

they dealing in, and how?

•	 What do thieves perceive to be the risks of selling stolen goods? 

•	 What do thieves perceive to be the rewards of selling stolen 

goods?

•	 How do thieves avoid being detected when selling stolen goods?

•	 How do thieves learn where to sell stolen goods?

•	 How safe do thieves feel transporting and stashing stolen goods?

•	 How safe do thieves feel when dealing with a fence?

•	 How concerned are thieves about getting caught?

•	 How much do thieves know about police operations against 

stolen goods dealing?

Fences

•	 Who are the fences (e.g., professional, quasi-legitimate 

merchants)? 

•	 What do fences perceive to be the risks of buying stolen goods?

•	 What do fences perceive to be the rewards of buying stolen 

goods?

Consumers

•	 Who in your jurisdiction tends to buy property that they know 

or should suspect is stolen?

•	 What do consumers of stolen goods perceive to be the current 

risks of buying them?

•	 What do consumers of stolen goods perceive to be the current 

rewards of buying them?
18 Stolen Goods Markets

Targets

•	 What types of goods are commonly being sold in stolen goods 

markets? Which types of targeted goods are newly popular? 

(Monitoring international, national, and local changes in the 

supply, demand, and price of certain goods and commodities can 

help you anticipate new theft and stolen goods trading problems. 

For example, global shortages of various metals have preceded 

surges in metal theft many times in the past.§) Simply keeping 

an eye on newspaper and other news items may reveal trends in 

this area. For example, a surge in reporting of strange thefts of 

cast iron road and side-walk drain covers, large bronze sculptures, 

metal road signs and copper wiring from electricity sub-stations 

and railway sidings are all examples of the upsurge in scrap metal 

theft caused by global shortages at the time of writing. Police 

agencies without resources for monitoring such factors might 

form useful collaborative research partnerships with university 

departments specializing in the effect of market trends upon 

crime, or those with an interest in developing such expertise. 

Locations and Times

•	 Where are the fencing operations located within your 

jurisdiction?

•	 Are there seasonal variations in the types of goods traded 

in stolen goods markets (e.g., snowblowers in winter, lawn 

mowers in summer, stereo equipment and laptop computers at 

the beginning of universities’ academic years, textbooks at the 

beginning of semesters and just before exam periods)?

§See Problem-Specific Guide No. 58, Theft 

of Scrap Metal, for further information.
Understanding Your Local Problem 19

Tips for Understanding Local Stolen Goods Markets

•	 Interview a sample of people who work in the wholesale 

and retail goods sectors. Without talking about crime, 

find out how and why goods are rejected by or shipped 

away from the retail stores that originally bought them, 

and where they end up.

•	 Map possible stolen goods market hot spots. Discuss 

with colleagues, informants, offenders, ex-offenders 

and other experts such as government officials or 

criminologists why certain areas might be conducive to 

stolen goods markets.

•	 Photograph store signs in your jurisdiction that seem to 

invite thieves to sell stolen goods there. Again, discuss 

with crime experts of the type listed above.§

•	 Conducting representative surveys of theft victims and 

of the general public at the county, city or town level is 

expensive, is time-consuming, and due to the specific 

characteristics of local crime problems offers little useful 

information for local initiatives.

§These tips are modified from Felson 

(2002). 
20 Stolen Goods Markets

Measuring Your Effectiveness

Measurement allows you to determine to what degree your efforts 

have succeeded, and suggests how you might modify your responses 

if they are not producing the intended results. You should take 

measures of your crime problem before you implement responses, 

to determine how serious the problem is, and after you implement 

them, to determine whether they have been effective. You should 

take all measures in both the target area and the surrounding area. 

A longer time frame is usually necessary for measuring the impact 

of responses to stolen goods markets.54 For more-detailed guidance 

on measuring effectiveness, see Problem-Solving Tools Guide No. 

1, Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory Guide for Police 

Problem-Solvers. 

Although seeking to reduce theft, burglary, and robbery by reducing 

the stolen goods markets that motivate thieves is a simple and 

compellingly logical idea, the reality is more complex. Stolen goods 

markets are remarkably adaptable to efforts to close them down. 

Goals are often difficult to achieve, and even if positive results 

are achieved, they can be hard to measure with certainty.55 It is 

important therefore to set achievable, measurable goals. 

The following are potentially useful measures of the effectiveness 

of responses to stolen goods markets. These measures are divided 

into two groups: those that measure the impact on the problem 

(outcome measures), and those that measure your agency’s 

responses to the problem (process measures).

Outcome Measures

•	 Reduced incidence of theft, burglary, and robbery

•	 Reduced incidence of trading in stolen property

Process Measures

•	 Increased time and difficulty selling stolen goods

•	 Increased arrests, prosecutions, and convictions for charges 

related to stolen goods markets

•	 Decreased public tolerance for stolen goods markets
Responses to the Problem of Stolen Goods Markets 21

Responses to the Problem of Stolen 

Goods Markets

Your analysis of your particular stolen goods problem should 

give you a better understanding of the factors contributing to it. 

Once you have analyzed your problem and established a baseline 

for measuring effectiveness, you should next consider possible 

responses to address it. 

The following response strategies provide a pool of promising 

ideas for addressing your particular theft and stolen goods market 

problem. The strategies summarized in Appendix A and those 

outlined in more detail here are drawn from a variety of research 

studies and police reports. Several of these strategies may apply 

to your community’s problem. For example, it is critical that you 

tailor responses to local circumstances, and that you can justify 

each response based on reliable local analysis and wider research 

knowledge. In most cases, an effective strategy will involve 

implementing several different responses. Law enforcement 

responses alone are seldom effective in reducing or solving the 

problem. Do not limit yourself to considering what police can 

do: consider also whether others in your community share 

responsibility for the problem and can help police better respond 

to it. In some cases, you may need to shift the responsibility of 

responding toward those who can implement more-effective 

responses. (For more-detailed information on shifting and sharing 

responsibility, see Response Guide No. 3, Shifting and Sharing 

Responsibility for Public Safety Problems.)
22 Stolen Goods Markets

General Considerations for an Effective 

Response Strategy

1. Adopting a comprehensive approach to stolen goods 

markets. A comprehensive approach to policing stolen goods 

that is occurring in the U.K. known as the Market Reduction 

Approach,56 addresses both supply and demand for stolen 

goods, and addresses the offenders who actively participate in 

stolen goods markets, the people who facilitate stolen goods 

markets, and the places and networks in which stolen goods 

markets occur.

2. Establishing and sustaining multiagency partnerships. The 

police working alone will be less effective than those working 

with agencies that can bring into play other intelligence, 

regulatory authority, and capacity to affect business practices. 

A working group comprising partner agency representatives 

from diverse areas such as retail loss prevention, revenue, 

business licensing, environment and trading standards can 

coordinate a large initiative and keep it on track. Particularly 

important is facilitating local prosecutors’ active involvement at 

your initiative’s planning and development stage so that police 

enforcement efforts achieve their maximum effect.57 Adopting 

a written interagency data-sharing protocol at an early stage of 

the partnership can make future analyses and operations run 

more smoothly.58

3. Improving investigations of stolen goods markets. Although 

this guide does not focus on crime investigation methods, 

improving your agency’s capacity to investigate theft, burglary, 

robbery and stolen-goods trading cases can be important 

to overall control of stolen goods markets. The following 

suggestions for improving criminal investigations relate to 

stolen goods markets:
Responses to the Problem of Stolen Goods Markets 23

•	 Consider setting up a specialized stolen goods market 

investigative unit. Specialized investigators can develop the 

necessary criminal intelligence, expertise, and resources to 

acquire evidence necessary to arrest and prosecute professional 

fences. Such specialization is obviously not feasible for smaller 

police agencies but might nonetheless be possible through joint 

agency task forces. Take care to guard against stolen goods 

investigators’ being diverted to investigations and activities 

unrelated to stolen goods markets.59

•	 Avoid enlisting known fences as confidential informants 

because fences recruit and encourage local thieves to steal more 

frequently.60

•	 Apply for warrants to search the homes of those arrested for 

theft, burglary, or robbery for stashed stolen property. If the 

arrested person is on probation or parole, the supervising agent 

may be able to authorize or conduct such a search. 

•	 Encourage police officers to routinely ask thieves where they 

sell stolen goods. While most will be reluctant to divulge such 

information, some will reveal at least some of the ways they sell 

stolen goods.

•	 Enlist technology for investigative purposes. Trying to identify 

thieves and fences by investigating suspicious classified ads 

is resource-intensive and seldom productive.61 On the other 

hand, searching Internet-based goods markets (such as eBay or 

Craigslist) and doing automated pawnshop record searches to 

seek out specific known stolen goods offered for sale are more 

efficient approaches and likely to be more productive.62

•	 Encourage neighborhood groups to report suspicious local 

trading activities, for example, and consider setting up or 

using existing crime-reporting hotlines, offering rewards for 

information leading to the conviction of those buying and 

selling stolen goods.
24 Stolen Goods Markets

Specific Responses To Reduce Stolen 

Goods Markets

4. Regulating and inspecting pawn- and secondhand shops.

Police and other relevant officials should routinely visit and 

inspect pawn- and secondhand shops to encourage compliance 

with laws designed to inhibit stolen goods markets.63 Local 

statutes and ordinances might be drafted to require pawn- and 

secondhand shops to submit transaction records to police 

daily and, ideally, in an electronic format that police can 

automatically compare against police reports about stolen 

goods.§ 

Statutes and ordinances that regulate how pawnbrokers and 

secondhand dealers§§ conduct business can make it more 

difficult for thieves to sell them stolen goods.64 At a minimum, 

such laws should require pawnbrokers and secondhand dealers 

to conduct all in-shop purchases on camera in public areas of 

their businesses, retain these CCTV recordings for at least 

three months and make them available to police on request, 

and demand and record valid proof of identification from 

sellers and maintain transaction records that are open to police 

inspection.65,

§§§ Other laws should ban people from reselling 

merchandise door to door, at least without having a proper 

business license.

5. Conducting reverse-sting operations. Rather than set up 

conventional fencing sting operations, conduct reverse-sting 

operations that entail police officers’ posing as thieves selling 

stolen goods to fences,66 or else use known thieves who agree to 

wear a wire when selling to a fence.67 Unlike antifencing sting 

operations in which police buy stolen goods, reverse stings are 

both more likely to be effective and less likely to backfire by 

promoting more theft.68

6. Conducting publicity campaigns to discourage buying 

suspected stolen goods. Publicity campaigns to discourage 

citizens from buying what they should suspect are stolen goods 

are intended to reduce the demand for stolen goods that drives 

many theft problems.

§This is required by law in New 

South Wales Australia. See: www.

fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/Businesses/

Specific_industries_and_businesses/

Pawnbroking_and_secondhand_

dealers/Computerised_records.html.

§§The term “secondhand dealers” is 

intended to include such operations as 

antique shops, flea markets and “swap 

shops” (Newfoundland and Labrador 

Government, 2006), and consignment 

stores. Not all such operations call for 

identical regulations, but local analysis 

should indicate which operations are 

prone to trading in stolen goods. 

§§§The U.K.’s city of Nottingham 

enacted a comprehensive law to 

control stolen goods markets. 

See www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/

CHttpHandler.ashx?id=6602&p=0. 
Responses to the Problem of Stolen Goods Markets 25

§See Response Guide No. 5, Crime 

Prevention Publicity Campaigns, for 

further information about how to 

design and assess crime prevention 

publicity initiatives.

§§Evaluation of the Market Reduction 

Approach in England (Hale et. al., 

2004) found that taxi drivers and 

bar owners may be particularly 

reluctant to report those selling stolen 

goods because they feel intimated 

by such criminal customers. What 

this research reveals is that any 

initiatives seeking to routinely gather 

intelligence from such sources will 

need to satisfactorily reassure potential 

informants that their confidentiality 

and safety has been given primary 

rather than secondary priority. 

You should carefully design and pretest publicity campaigns—

including those involving TV, radio, print media, posters 

and stickers, leaflets or the Internet—to ensure that you’re 

changing attitudes in the intended, rather than the opposite, 

direction. What works in the use of media to change attitudes 

is complex and likely to be counterintuitive.69 Attempts to 

convince the public not to buy stolen goods may actually 

backfire and make the problem worse.70,

§

Even well-designed and well-implemented publicity campaigns 

to discourage participation in stolen goods markets will not 

solely suffice to address the problem, but rather must be done 

in combination with other responses that disrupt and reduce 

the markets. 

7. Encouraging those who facilitate stolen goods markets to 

report thieves and fences. Encourage people who are in the 

position to learn who is stealing and selling stolen property—

for example, taxi drivers, bartenders and liquor merchants, 

barbers and offenders apprehended on other charges—to 

report thieves’ and fences’ identities. You might need to offer 

them cash or other incentives for this information. Take care, 

however, not to leave them vulnerable to intimidation or 

retaliation from those whom they report.§§

Encouraging the general public to report incidents in which 

people approach them on the street or at their homes, offering 

to sell them deeply discounted goods, can lead to arrests of 

those selling stolen goods.71

A word of caution: Be wary of driving stolen goods markets 

deeper underground. Assess the possible unintended 

consequences of cracking down too hard on stolen goods 

markets if it means that those buying stolen goods get deterred 

from seeking police assistance or cooperating in investigations 

of more-serious crimes.
26 Stolen Goods Markets

8. Closing down fencing operations. In addition to using 

criminal law, explore enforcing civil laws such as those that 

govern taxes, fire safety, public health, building structures 

and maintenance, nuisances, business licenses or zoning to 

compel property owners to either cease fencing operations or 

close the operations entirely. Under some circumstances, you 

might also be able to enforce criminal and civil statutes relating 

to organized criminal enterprises, such as the U.S. federal 

Racketeering-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) 

statutes or equivalent state laws. 

9. Seizing assets connected to stolen goods markets. If you 

succeed in building a criminal case against a fencing operation, 

you should explore the feasibility of also seeking the seizure and 

forfeiture of assets linked to the criminal enterprise.§ 

Responses With Limited Effectiveness

10. Improving systems for disposing of recovered stolen goods. 

Police agencies recover and store large amounts of property, 

some of which is known to be stolen; some suspected, but not 

proved, to be stolen; and some not even reported as stolen. 

Although returning stolen property to its rightful owner 

does little to reduce theft or control stolen goods markets, it 

nonetheless can improve victims’ satisfaction with police service 

and help reduce the often large property inventories in police 

custody. 

Historically, police efforts to link recovered property to 

reported thefts and to rightful owners has been difficult 

and time-consuming.72 There is some promise that modern 

information technology can make these efforts more efficient. 

New police property-tracking software programs and Internetbased property-tracking systems can make it easier to link 

recovered property to reported thefts and to rightful owners. 

When police agencies can’t link recovered property to its 

rightful owners, they often seek to return that property to the 

local community via charitable donations or auctions. This is 

§See Response Guide No. 7, Asset 

Forfeiture, for further information. 
Responses to the Problem of Stolen Goods Markets 27

especially common with recovered bicycles.§ The merits of such 

initiatives are beyond the scope of this guide, but a couple of 

words of caution are in order: some recovered goods might no 

longer be safe or desirable for consumers, and local businesses 

that sell the same goods the police are giving away or selling 

might lose sales for those goods.

11. Conducting traditional anti-fencing sting operations.

Conventional sting operations against stolen goods markets 

entail deploying police officers to pose as buyers to catch 

thieves selling stolen goods. This might be done through 

fake pawnshops, clandestine fencing operations, or online in 

electronic goods markets.73

Sting operations have been one of the predominant responses 

police have used to address stolen goods markets. Many such 

antifencing operations have focused on commercial fences.74

These tend to be short-term operations in response to theft 

sprees.

The majority of the best available research strongly suggests 

that you should avoid police storefront antifencing stings 

because they require huge amounts of resources and do more 

harm than good.75 Stolen goods sting operations can have the 

unintended effect of encouraging more theft in the area to 

meet the perceived new demand.76,

§§ Moreover, they often 

provide an infusion of cash that winds up in local illegal drug 

markets. When a new fencing sting operation opens in an area, 

unsuspecting thieves might prefer to sell there because of the 

convenient location (the farther thieves have to transport stolen 

goods, the greater the chance of getting caught).77 In addition, 

if the sting operators offer what thieves perceive to be good or 

fair prices, they might be induced to commit more thefts to 

boost their income.78

Reports of successful sting operations often fail to fully examine 

the wider harm they cause79 and are often little more than selfpromotional how-to manuals.80

§See Problem-Specific Guide No. 52, 

Bicycle Theft, for further information.

§§See Response Guide No. 6, Sting 

Operations, for further information.
28 Stolen Goods Markets

12. Promoting property-marking schemes. Property-marking 

has never been proved to reduce theft largely because thieves 

will steal marked property and fences and citizens will buy it. 

Despite the sometimes bold assertions commercial companies 

make about their property-marking products’ success, and 

despite the fact that property-marking is relatively easy to 

do, independent academic research concludes that propertymarking does not reduce theft.81 Property-marking remains a 

favored police response to theft, and police officers often justify 

it on the grounds that it is good for public relations and helps in 

property recovery. However, even this is completely unfounded, 

and such property-recovery schemes can easily consume entire 

budgets set aside for targeted crime reduction, while being 

completely ineffective at returning property.82
Appendix A 29

Appendix A: Summary of Responses to 

Stolen Goods Markets

The table below summarizes the responses to stolen goods markets, 

the means by which they are intended to work, the conditions 

under which they should work best, and some factors you should 

consider before implementing a particular response. It is critical 

that you tailor responses to local circumstances, and that you 

can justify each response based on reliable analysis. In most cases, 

an effective strategy will involve implementing several different 

responses. Law enforcement responses alone are seldom effective in 

reducing or solving the problem. 

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

General Considerations for an Effective Response Strategy

1 22 Adopting a 

comprehensive 

approach to stolen 

goods markets

It reduces both 

the supply and the 

demand for stolen 

goods

...it’s based on known 

effective practices

It can be difficult to 

maintain a focus on 

stolen goods markets 

as opposed to the 

traditional focus on 

original thefts

2 22 Establishing 

and sustaining 

multiagency 

partnerships

It improves 

communication and 

coordination among 

key responders

...working groups 

coordinate activity 

and maintain focus, 

and written protocols 

establish clear 

responsibilities and 

authority

Partner agencies can 

have differing priorities 

and goals; large 

partnerships can be 

difficult to manage and 

sustain

3 22 Improving 

investigations 

of stolen goods 

markets

It increases the risks 

of apprehension to 

offenders

...detectives and 

officers are open to 

changing conventional 

investigative practices

It may require 

additional resources to 

devote to stolen goods 

markets
30 Stolen Goods Markets

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

Specific Responses To Reduce Stolen Goods Markets

4 24 Regulating and 

inspecting pawnand secondhand 

shops

It increases 

offenders’ effort to 

sell stolen goods 

and their risk of 

apprehension

...merchants can 

comply with 

regulations relatively 

simply and efficiently, 

and police enforce 

regulations consistently 

and fairly

It may require new 

legislative action 

requiring careful police 

justification; it may 

require merchants to 

buy new computerized 

records and data sharing 

systems; it may require 

additional police 

investigative resources

5 24 Conducting 

reverse-sting 

operations

It promotes 

greater compliance 

with regulations 

restricting the 

purchase of stolen 

goods

...police conduct 

them regularly but at 

unpredictable intervals, 

and they focus them on 

problematic locations

It may require 

additional investigative 

resources

6 24 Conducting 

publicity 

campaigns to 

discourage buying 

suspected stolen 

goods

In conjunction with 

wider anti-fencing 

initiative it reduces 

the demand for 

stolen goods and 

increases offenders’ 

efforts to sell them

...they are carefully 

designed and 

tested before full 

implementation

It can waste resources 

if it’s ineffective 

or backfires by 

encouraging more 

offending; it can be 

expensive

7 25 Encouraging those 

who facilitate 

stolen goods 

markets to report 

thieves and fences

It increases 

offenders’ risk of 

apprehension

...informants are 

provided adequate 

incentives to provide 

information and safe 

avenues to do so

It can increase 

informants’ risk 

of intimidation or 

retaliation from 

offenders

8 26 Closing down 

fencing operations

It increases 

offenders’ efforts 

to sell stolen goods 

and reduces the 

wholesale demand 

for them

...police shut down a 

sufficient number of—

or sufficiently large—

operations

It requires careful 

and perhaps resourceintensive investigations

9 26 Seizing assets 

connected to stolen 

goods markets

It denies offenders 

the rewards of 

trading in stolen 

goods

...antifencing 

operations have 

sufficient assets on 

hand to deter future 

offending

Some state assetforfeiture laws are 

restrictive and difficult 

to enforce
Appendix A 31

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

Responses With Limited Effectiveness

10 26 Improving systems 

for disposing of 

recovered stolen 

goods

It is unlikely to reduce 

theft or stolen goods 

trading; it may be too 

resource- intensive

11 27 Conducting 

traditional antiIt can have the unintended effect of 

fencing sting 

operations

increasing local demand 

for stolen goods

12 28 Promoting 

property-marking 

schemes 

Thieves tend to steal 

and consumers tend 

to buy even marked 

property. When police 

presence returns to 

normal, crime rates rise 

to previous levels.

Appendix B 33

Appendix B: Sample Stolen Goods 

Market Offender Interview 

The following questions can be asked in the present, rather than the 

past tense, if interviews are conducted by a skilled social scientist 

questioning active offenders while offering the interviewees full 

ethical assurances of anonymity. English constabularies using 

the Market Reduction Approach employed outside academic 

consultants to interview offenders in Nottinghamshire and 

Derbyshire,83 Operation Radium in Kent84 and the We Don’t Buy 

Crime initiative in West Mercia.85 Police officers and other police 

employees may not be in a position to offer the same assurances of 

confidentiality.

1. What sentence did you receive for your last theft offense? 

2. What kind of things did you steal? 

3. From where did you steal?

4. How often did you steal?

5. How did you decide what to steal?

6. Did you know what you were going to do with the items before 

you stole them?

7. What did you do with what you stole? 

Take the buyer to the goods?

Take the goods to the buyer?

Take the goods onto the street, looking for buyers?

Use a mobile phone to find buyers?

Take the goods to a friend who knows buyers?

8. How did you know to whom/where to sell?

9. Why was it easier to sell to that person/place?

10. How did you learn the best ways to sell stolen goods?
34 Stolen Goods Markets

11. Where did you (and others) sell the following types of stolen 

goods?

Jewelry?

Electrical goods?

Shoplifted items (clothes, cigarettes, food, alcohol)?

Guns?

12. To how many different people did you sell?

13. For each type of stolen good, how did you sell?

Hawking in a public place, door-to-door, in bars, at flea 

markets?

Network sales (through friends and contacts)?

Commercial fence supplies?

What kind of businesses? Corner shops, jewelers, 

pawnbrokers, secondhand shops? 

Residential fence supplies? 

Family, friends, acquaintances?

14. Did people buy stolen goods without asking any questions 

about where they came from or proof of identity?

15. Do you think the shopkeepers knew the goods you were selling 

were stolen?

16. How easy was it to sell each type of stolen goods?

17. Did police ever catch your fence/dealer?

18. Did you ever need to dump goods?

19. How did you know where to take stolen property?

20. How long did it take you to get rid of property?

21. If you had to store/stash goods, where did you do that?

Own home?

Friend’s/relative’s/partner’s house?

Vehicle?

Lockups?

Empty houses?
Appendix B 35

22. How did you transport what you stole?

Car?

Public transportation?

On foot?

Bicycle?

23. Did you ever swap stolen goods for drugs? Or trade stolen 

goods for anything else?

24. Did you work alone or with someone else?

25. Did you earn money from selling stolen goods shared with 

someone?

26. Did anyone ever ask you to steal to order? What sort of 

property?

27. Did you ever ask someone else to sell something for you? Who 

(don’t need to know names)? What sort of property?

28. What did you do with any money you got from what you stole?

29. Why did you steal and sell stolen goods?

For cash to party (alcohol, drugs, prostitution)?

To support other people?

For fun and excitement?

To support a drug, alcohol, gambling, or other addiction?

30. What did community members think of buying stolen goods? 

Did they ask? Did they turn a “blind eye”?

31. Were you aware of the police when you were stealing or selling 

stolen goods? Did you take precautions not to get caught?

32. Did you have any strategies to ensure that buyers were not going 

to inform police?

33. What did you know about police operations against thieves and 

dealers?

34. How concerned were you about your chances of getting caught?

35. How long did it typically take you to sell your stolen goods?
36 Stolen Goods Markets

36. Were or are you aware of any markets closing down as a result of 

police intervention?

37. Were or are you aware of any increased police interest in where 

stolen property was or is sold?

38. Did property-marking deter you from stealing? Were there 

particular types of marking that deterred you more than others?

39. Did you get a good return for the goods you sold?

40. Did prices for particular goods go up? If so, did that affect what 

you stole?

41. Did prices for particular goods go down? Did that stop you 

from stealing such things?

42. What do you think affected/affects price changes?

The market got/gets swamped with stolen stuff ?

Street prices went/go down?

Fashions changed/change?

Prospective thieves feared/fear detection?

43. Are there any goods that you used to steal, but no longer 

would? If so, why?
Endnotes 37

Endnotes

1 Walsh (1976).

2 Sutton (1998), p. 68.

3 Plate (1975); Sutton (1995).

4 Kerckhoff and Kleinknecht (1980); Walsh (1976).

5 Steffensmeier and Ulmer (2005).

6 Sutton (2008, 2003a, 1998).

7 Steffensmeier and Ulmer (2005).

8 Walsh (1976); Pennell (1979); Weiner, Besachuch, and Stephens 

(1981); Harris, Hale, and Uglow (2003); Hale et al. (2004); Sutton (2008, 1995).

9 Reuter (1990, 1985); Venkatesh (2006); Rosenfeld (2009).

10 Tremblay, Clermont, and Cusson (1994).

11 Sutton (1998).

12 Steffensmeier and Ulmer (2005).

13 Sutton (1998); Felson (2002).

14 Sutton (2008, 2003a).

15 Sutton (1998).

16 Sutton (2002).

17 Sutton (2008, 2003a, 1998).

18 Johnson, Natarajan, and Sanabria (1993); Clarke (1999).

19 Sutton (2003a); Gill et al. (2004); McKinnon (2006); Nahmias 

(2006); NACS (2007); Talamo (2007); Reno (2008); Finucane 

(2009).

20 Clarke (1999).

21 Tremblay, Clermont, and Cusson (1994); Sutton and Schneider 

(1999); Gill et al. (2004).

22 Sutton (2008); Sutton, Schneider, and Hetherington (2001): 

Schneider (2005b, 2003).
38 Stolen Goods Markets

23 Pease (2002).

24 Sutton (1998); Felson (2002).

25 Langworthy and Lebeau (1992); Sutton (1998).

26 Sutton (2008, 2003a).

27 Steffensmeier (1986); Sutton (2008).

28 Sutton, Hodgkinson, and Levi (2008).

29 Pengelly (1996).

30 Henry (1981); Hobbs (1989); Foster (1990); Sutton (1998).

31 Henry (1981, 1978); Parker, Bakx, and Newcombe (1988); 

Hobbs (1989); Foster (1990); Sutton (2003b, 1995); Clarke 

(1999); Felson (2002).

32 Bennett, Holloway, and Williams (2001).

33 Sutton (2008, 2003a, 1998).

34 Struzzi (1998).

35 Sutton, Hodgkinson, and Levi (2008). 

36 Ferman, Henry, and Hoyman (1987); Auld, Dorn, and South 

(1986).

37 Sutton (2008, 2003a).

38 Sutton (1998).

39 Eck (1994).

40 Blakey and Goldsmith (1976).

41 Steffensmeier and Ulmer (2005).

42 Lewis (2006).

43 Webby (2008).

44 Lanter (1999); Steffensmeier and Ulmer (2005).

45 Steffensmeier and Ulmer (2005).

46 Cromwell, Olson, and Avery (1993); Sutton (1998).

47 Cromwell, Olson, and Avery (1993).
Endnotes 39

48 Stevenson and Forsythe (1998); Sutton (1998).

49 Wright and Decker (1994).

50 Sutton, Schneider, and Hetherington (2001).

51 Hale et al. (2004).

52 Ekblom, Law, and Sutton (1996).

53 Hale et al. (2004); Pengelly (1997).

54 Walsh (1976).

55 Hale et al. (2004).

56 Sutton (2008); Sutton et al. (2007); Hale et al. (2004); Harris, 

Hale, and Uglow (2003).

57 Walsh (1976); Weiner, Besachuch, and Stephens (1981).

58 Harris, Hale, and Uglow (2003).

59 Walsh (1976).

60 Steffensmeier and Ulmer (2005); Sutton (2008, 2003a, 1998).

61 Hale et al. (2004).

62 Talamo et al. (2007).

63 Hale et al. (2004).

64 Larsen (n.d.); Justice Technology Information Network (2007).

65 Sutton (2008).

66 Weiner, Besachuch, and Stephens (1981).

67 Schmitt (2003).

68 Webby (2008).

69 Sutton et al. (2007).

70 Harris, Hale, and Uglow (2003).

71 Eckersley (2003).

72 Whitehead and Gray (1998); Sutton, Schneider, and Hetherington (2001).

73 Skelton (2005).

74 Webby (2008).
40 Stolen Goods Markets

75 Langworthy and LeBeau (1992); Sutton (2008, 2003a).

76 Langworthy (1989); Langworthy and LeBeau (1992); Pennell 

(1979). For contrary evidence, see Raub (1984).

77 Langworthy and LeBeau (1992).

78 Sutton (2003a, 1998); Felson (2002).

79 For example, see Cotter and Burrows (1981).

80 Smith, Sheridan, and Yurcisin (1991).

81 Knutsson (1984) ; Sutton (1998); Harris, Hale, and Uglow (2003); 

Hale et al. (2004); Bent Society (2008).

82 Whitehead and Gray (1998).

83 Sutton (2003b, 2008).

84 Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate 

(2004).

85 Schneider (2005a).
References 41

References

Auld, J., N. Dorn, and N. South (1986). “Irregular Work, Irregular 

Pleasures: Heroin in the 1980’s.” In R. Mathews and J. Young 

(eds.), Confronting Crime. London: Sage.

Bennett, T., K. Holloway, and T. Williams (2001). “Drug Use and 

Offending: Summary Results From the First Year of the NEWADAM Research Program.” Research Findings 148. London: 

Home Office.

Bent Society (2008). Setting the Record Straight About Smartwater 

for Perpetuity. bentsocietyblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/settingrecord-straight-about.html

Blakey, G., and M. Goldsmith (1976). “Criminal Redistribution of 

Stolen Property: The Need for Law Reform.” Michigan Law 

Review 74:1511–1565.

Clarke, R. (1999). “Hot Products: Understanding, Anticipating, 

and Reducing Demand for Stolen Goods.” Police Research 

Series, Paper 112, Policing and Reducing Crime Unit, Research 

Development and Statistics Directorate. London: Home 

Office.

Cornish, D. (1994) The Procedural Analysis of Offending and its 

Relevance for Situational Crime Prevention. In Clarke, R.V. 

(Ed.) Crime Prevention Studies. Vol. 3. New York. Criminal 

Justice Press.

Cotter, C., and J. Burrows (1981). “Property Crime Program: A 

Special Report Overview of the Sting Program and Project 

Summaries.” Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 

Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.

Cromwell, P., J. Olson, and D. Avery (1993). “Who Buys Stolen 

Property? A New Look at Criminal Receiving.” Journal of 

Crime and Justice 16(1):75–95. 

Davis, D. (1998). Internet Detective: An Investigator’s Guide. Police 

Research Group. London: Home Office.
42 Stolen Goods Markets

Eck, J. (1994). “A General Model of the Geography of Illicit 

Retail Marketplaces.” In J. Eck and D. Weisburd (eds.), Crime 

and Place. Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 4. Monsey, N.Y.: 

Criminal Justice Press. 

Eckersley, S. (2003). “Putting the Brakes on Lorry Theft.” 

(Lancashire Constabulary) Submission for the Herman 

Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing.

www.popcenter.org/library/awards/goldstein/2003/03-58.pdf

Ekblom, P., H. Law, and M. Sutton (1996). “Domestic Burglary 

Schemes in the Safer Cities Program.” Home Office Research 

Study No. 164. London: Home Office. 

Felson, M. (2002). Crime and Everyday Life, 3rd ed. Thousand 

Oaks, Calif.: Pine Forge Press, Sage.

Ferman, L., S. Henry, and M. Hoyman (1987). “The Informal 

Economy.” Annals of the American Association of Political and 

Social Science (493):154–172.

Field, S. (1990). “Trends in Crime and Their Interpretation: A 

Study of Recorded Crime in Post-War England and Wales.” 

Home Office Research Study No. 119. London: Home Office.

Finucane, M. (2009). “Police Try New Tactic in Cell Phone 

Robberies: They Target Stores Selling Used Ones.” 

www.boston.com/news/education/higher/

articles/2009/01/15/police_try_new_tactic_in_cellphone_

robberies

Foster, J. (1990). Villains: Crime and Community in the Inner City. 

London: Routledge.

Gill, M., T. Burns-Howell, M. Hemming, J. Hart, R. Hayes, A. 

Wright, and R. Clarke (2004). The Illicit Market in Stolen, 

Fast-Moving Consumer Goods. Leicester, England: Perpetuity 

Research and Consultancy Ltd. 

Hale, C., C. Harris, S. Uglow, L. Gilling, and A. Netton (2004). 

Targeting the Markets for Stolen Goods – Two Targeted Policing 

Initiative Projects. Home Office Development and Practice 

Report No 17. London: Home Office.
References 43

Harris, C., C. Hale, and S. Uglow (2003). “Theory Into Practice: 

Implementing a Market Reduction Approach to Property 

Crime.” In K. Bullock and N. Tilley (eds.), Crime Reduction and 

Problem-Oriented Policing. Cullompton, England: Willan Press.

Henry, S. (ed.) (1981). Can I Have It in Cash? A Study of Informal 

Institutions and Unorthodox Ways of Doing Things. London: 

Astragal Books.

——— (1978). The Hidden Economy: The Context and Control of 

Borderline Crime. London: Martin Robertson and Co. 

Hobbs, D. (1989). Doing the Business: Entrepreneurship, the 

Working Class, and Detectives in the East End of London. 

Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate 

(2004). Targeting the Market for Stolen Goods—Two Targeted 

Policing Initiative Projects. Home Office Development and 

Practice Report. London: U.K. Home Office. Accessible at 

www.popcenter.org/library/scp/pdf/82-Hale.pdf 

Johns, T., and R. Hayes (2003). “Behind the Fence: Buying and 

Selling Stolen Merchandise.” Security Journal 16(4):29–44.

Johnson, D., M. Natarajan, and H. Sanabria (1993). “‘Successful’ 

Criminal Careers: Toward an Ethnography Within the 

Rational Choice Perspective.” In R. Clarke and M. Felson 

(eds.), Routine Activity and Rational Choice: Advances in 

Criminological Theory. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transactions 

Publishers.

Justice Technology Information Network (2007). “Pawn 

Transaction Database for Law Enforcement.” 

www.nlectc.org/virlib/InfoDetail.asap?intInfolD=786

Kerckhoff, D., and G. Kleinknecht (1980). “St. Louis County 

Responds to Hot Goods.” Police Chief 47(5):45–47, 69. 

Knuttson, J. (1984) “Operation Identification: a way to prevent 

burglaries?” The National Council for Crime Prevention, 

Sweden, Report No 14. Stockholm: Research Division.
44 Stolen Goods Markets

Langworthy, R. (1989). “Do Stings Control Crime? An Evaluation 

of a Police Fencing Operation.” Justice Quarterly 6(1):27–45.

Langworthy, R., and I. Lebeau (1992). “The Spatial Evolution of 

Sting Clientele.” Journal of Criminal Justice 20(2):135–145.

Lanter, D. (1999). “In the Business of Fencing: Making Sense 

of Federal Sentencing Enhancements for Dealers in Stolen 

Goods.” Texas Law Review 77(6):1485–1525.

Larsen, E. (n.d.). “APS Solves Property Crimes for Eau Claire Police 

Department.” GovtoGov Solutions. www.govtogovsolutions.org/

Default.aspx?tabid=114

Lewis, L. (2006). “Organized Retail Crime: Retail’s No. 1 Security 

Issue.” California Grocer, April, pp. 2–11.

McKinnon, J. (2006). “Volatile Formula: How Patriot Act Helped 

Convict Man in Baby-Food Ring.” Wall Street Journal, April 4, 

p. A1.

NACS (2007). “Fact Sheet: Cigarette Theft.” Alexandria, Va.: 

National Association of Convenience Stores.

Nahmias, D. (2006). “Store Owners Charged With Buying and 

Shipping Stolen Infant Formula and Other Goods for Resale 

in New York.” News release, October 17, U.S. Department of 

Justice, Northern District of Georgia.

Newfoundland and Labrador Government (2006). “Government 

Unveils Flea Markets Regulation Act.” News release, 

November 28.

Newman, G., and R. Clarke (2003). Superhighway Robbery: 

Preventing E-Commerce Crime. Cullompton, England: Willan 

Publishing.

Parker, H., K. Bakx, and R. Newcombe (1988). Living With Heroin: 

The Impact of Drugs “Epidemic” on an English Community.

Milton Keynes, England: Oxford University Press. 

Pease, K. (2002). “Crime Prevention.” In M. Maguire, R. Morgan, 

and R. Reiner (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. 

Oxford, England.: Oxford University Press.
References 45

Pengelly, R. (1997). “How To Handle the Stolen Goods Racket.” 

Police (May):13–17.

——— (1996). “The Black Economy Boom: Handlers Play a Big 

Role in Criminal Activity but Current Performance Indicators 

Mean Little is Being Done to Target Those Involved in the 

Market for Stolen Goods.” Police Review (December 13):14–16.

Pennell, S. (1979). “Fencing Activity and Police Strategy.” The Police 

Chief (September):71–75.

Plate, T. (1975). Crime Pays! An Inside Look at Burglars, Car 

Thieves, Loan Sharks, Hit Men, Fences and Other Professionals 

in Crime. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Raub, R. (1984). “Effect of Antifencing Operations on Encouraging 

Crime.” Criminal Justice Review 9(2):78–83.

Reno, J. (2008). “Rising Ripoffs: Thefts of Manhole Covers Increase 

as Metals Prices Soar.” Newsweek. Web Exclusive. May 19: 

www.newsweek.com/id/137822

Reuter, P. (1990). “Money From Crime: A Study of the Economics 

of Drug Dealing in Washington, D.C.” Santa Monica, CA. 

RAND Corp., Drug Policy Research Center.

——— (1985). “The Organization of Illegal Markets: An 

Economic Analysis.” Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Rosenfeld, R. (2009). “Crime is the Problem: Homicide, Acquisitive 

Crime, and Economic Conditions.” Journal of Quantitative 

Criminology 25: 287-306. 

Schmitt, B. (2003). “Detroit, Wayne County, Mich., Target Store 

Owners Selling Stolen Goods.” Detroit Free Press, September 11. 

Schneider, J. (2005a). “Stolen-Goods Markets: Methods of 

Disposal.” British Journal of Criminology 45 (2): 129-140. 

——— (2005b). “The Link Between Shoplifting and Burglary: The 

Booster Burglar.” British Journal of Criminology 45(3):395–401.

——— (2003). “Prolific Burglars and the Role of Shoplifting.” 

Security Journal 16(2):49–59.
46 Stolen Goods Markets

Skelton, C. (2005). “Crooks Using eBay To Fence Stolen Property. 

Vancouver Sun, October 13, p. A1.

Smith, J., J. Sheridan, and D. Yurcisin (1991). How To Set Up and 

Run a Successful Law Enforcement Sting Operation. Englewood 

Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Steffensmeier, D. (1986). The Fence: In the Shadow of Two Worlds. 

Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Littlefield. 

Steffensmeier, D., and J. Ulmer (2005). Confessions of a Dying Thief: 

Understanding Criminal Careers and Illegal Enterprise. New 

Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers. 

Stevenson, R., and L. Forsythe (1998). The Stolen Goods Market 

in New South Wales: An Interview Study With Imprisoned 

Burglars. Sydney (Australia): NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics 

and Research. www.popcenter.org/problems/bicycle_theft/

PDFs/Stevenson_Forsythe_1998.pdf

Struzzi, D. (1998). “Roanoke Police Make Dent in Stolen-GoodsFor-Drugs Market: ‘I Certainly Didn’t Envision [Drug-Related 

Crime] Intruding Into This Neighborhood.’” Roanoke Times & 

World News, August 2, p. B1.

Sutton, M. (2008). “How Prolific Thieves Sell Stolen Goods: 

Describing, Understanding, and Tackling the Local Markets 

in Mansfield and Nottingham: A Market Reduction Approach 

Study.” Internet Journal of Criminology. Available under primary 

F papers at www.Internetjournalofcriminology.com, or directly 

at www.internetjournalofcriminology.com/Sutton%20-%20

How%20Prolific%20Thieves%20Sell%20Stolen%20Goods.pdf

——— (2004). “The Market Reduction Approach Is Route-Level 

Situational Crime Prevention.” In R. Hopkins Burke (ed.), 

Hard Cop, Soft Cop: Debates and Dilemmas in Contemporary 

Policing. Cullumpton, England: Willan Press.
References 47

——— (2003a). “How Burglars and Shoplifters Sell Stolen 

Goods in Derby: Describing and Understanding the Local 

Illicit Markets: A Dynamics-of-Offending Report for 

Derby Community Safety Partnership.” Internet Journal 

of Criminology. www.internetjournalofcriminology.com/

Sutton%20-%20Stolen%20Goods%20in%20Derby.pdf

——— (2003b). “Theft, Stolen Goods, and the Market Reduction 

Approach.” In J. Shapland, H. Albrecht, J. Ditton, and 

T. Godefroy (eds.), The Informal Economy: Threat and 

Opportunity in the City. Freiburg, Germany: Max-Planck 

Institute.

——— (2002). “Fencing.” In D. Levinson (ed.), Encyclopaedia of 

Crime and Punishment, Vol. 2. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.

——— (1998). Handling Stolen Goods and Theft: A Market 

Reduction Approach. Home Office Research Study No. 178. 

London: Home Office.

——— (1996). “Implementing Crime Prevention Schemes in a 

Multiagency Setting: Aspects of Process in the Safer Cities 

Program.” Home Office Research Study No. 160. London: 

Home Office.

——— (1995). “Supply by Theft: Does the Market for 

Secondhand Goods Play a Role in Keeping Crime Figures 

High?” British Journal of Criminology 38(3):400–416.

——— (1993). “From Receiving to Thieving: The Market for 

Stolen Goods and the Incidence of Theft.” Home Office 

Research Bulletin No. 34. London: Home Office.

Sutton, M., S. Hodgkinson, and M. Levi (2008). “Handling Stolen 

Goods: Findings From the 2003 Offending, Crime, and Justice 

Survey.” Internet Journal of Criminology. Available under 

primary research papers at www.Internetjournalofcriminology.

com, or directly at www.internetjournalofcriminology.

com/Sutton,%20Hodgkinson%20and%20Levi%20-%20

Handling%20Stolen%20Goods.pdf
48 Stolen Goods Markets

Sutton, M., B. Perry, J. Parke, and C. John-Baptiste (2007). “Getting 

the Message Across: Using Media To Reduce Racial Prejudice 

and Discrimination.” London: Department of Communities 

and Local Government. www.communities.gov.uk/documents/

communities/pdf/611667.pdf

Sutton, M., and J. Schneider (1999). “Theft, Stolen Goods, and 

Market Reduction Approach.” In C. Brito and S. Allan (eds.), 

Problem-Oriented Policing, Vol. 2. Washington, D.C.: Police 

Executive Research Forum. 

Sutton, M., J. Schneider, and S. Hetherington (2001). “Tackling 

Theft With the Market Reduction Approach.” Home Office 

Crime Reduction Research Series Paper No. 8. London: 

Home Office.

Talamo, J. (2007). “Organized Retail Crime: Setting the Stage 

for an ORC Strategy.” Loss Prevention ( January/February) 

6(1):22–30.

Talamo, J., P. Kay, K. McAlister, and J. Hajdu (2007). “Organized 

Retail Crime: Executing the ORC Strategy.” Loss Prevention

(March/April) 6(1):51–61.

Tremblay, P., Y. Clermont, and M. Cusson (1994). “Jockeys and 

Joyriders: Changing Patterns in Car Theft Opportunity 

Structures.” British Journal of Criminology 34(3):307–321.

Tuckey, S. (2007). “Stolen Art Is Sold Online: Expert.” National 

Underwriter/Property & Casualty Risk & Benefits Management

111(18):26.

Venkatesh, S. (2006) Off the Books: The Underground Economy of 

the Urban Poor. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Walsh, M. (1976). Strategies for Combating the Criminal Receiver 

of Stolen Goods: Organized Crime Antifencing Manual. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office 

of Regional Operations, Law Enforcement Assistance 

Administration. 
References 49

Webby, S. (2008). “San Jose Police Bust Huge Criminal Retailing 

Rings.” The Mercury News, June 6.

Weiner, K., D. Besachuch. and C. Stephens (1981). “Detroit Police 

Department Antifencing Project: January 1977 Through 

January 1981: Final Evaluation.” Detroit: Detroit Police 

Department.

Whitehead, P., and P. Gray (1998). “Pulling the Plug on Computer 

Theft.” Policing and Reducing Crime Unit, Policing Research 

Series Paper No. 101. London: Home Office.

Wilbur, D. (2004). “D.C. Cracks Down as Stolen-Goods Dealers 

Evolve: Fencing Becomes More Sophisticated, Disciplined.” 

Washington Post, August 16, p. A1.

Wright, T., and S. Decker (1994). Burglars on the Job: Street Life and 

Residential Break-Ins. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

About the Author 51

About the Author

Michael Sutton

Mike Sutton is a reader in criminology at Nottingham Trent 

University, Nottinghamshire, England; director of the Nottingham 

Centre for Study and Reduction of Hate Crimes, Bias and 

Prejudice and co-founder and general editor of the Internet Journal 

of Criminology. He was formerly senior research officer at the 

U.K. Home Office Policing Research Group. Sutton was the 1999 

co-recipient of the prestigious British Journal of Criminology Prize 

for an article he wrote on hi-tech crime that was judged to have 

most significantly contributed to the knowledge and understanding 

of criminological issues. He is the originator of the Market 

Reduction Approach to theft. For more than a decade, Sutton 

has conducted research into stolen goods markets for several U.K. 

police forces and has written extensively about how police services 

can best understand and tackle local stolen goods markets. Sutton 

holds a law degree with honors and doctorate in criminology from 

the University of Central Lancashire in England.

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 53

Other Problem-Oriented Guides 

for Police

Problem-Specific Guides series:

1. Assaults in and Around Bars, 2nd Edition. Michael S. Scott 

and Kelly Dedel. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-00-2

2. Street Prostitution, 2nd Edition. Michael S. Scott and Kelly 

Dedel. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-01-0

3. Speeding in Residential Areas, 2nd Edition. Michael S. Scott 

with David K. Maddox. 2010. ISBN: 978-1-935676-02-7

4. Drug Dealing in Privately Owned Apartment Complexes. 

Rana Sampson. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-03-7

5. False Burglar Alarms, 2nd Edition. Rana Sampson. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-04-5

6. Disorderly Youth in Public Places. Michael S. Scott. 2001. 

ISBN: 1-932582-05-3

7. Loud Car Stereos. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-06-1

8. Robbery at Automated Teller Machines. Michael S. Scott. 

2001. ISBN: 1-932582-07-X

9. Graffiti. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-08-8

10. Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities. Ronald V. 

Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-09-6

11. Shoplifting. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-10-X

12. Bullying in Schools. Rana Sampson. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-11-8

13. Panhandling. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-12-6

14. Rave Parties. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-13-4

15. Burglary of Retail Establishments. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-14-2

16. Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs, 2nd Edition. Michael 

S. Scott and Kelly Dedel. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-15-0

17. Acquaintance Rape of College Students. Rana Sampson. 

2002. ISBN: 1-932582-16-9

18. Burglary of Single-Family Houses. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 

2002. ISBN: 1-932582-17-7

19. Misuse and Abuse of 911. Rana Sampson. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-18-5
54 Stolen Goods Markets

20. Financial Crimes Against the Elderly. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 

2003. ISBN: 1-932582-22-3

21. Check and Card Fraud. Graeme R. Newman. 2003. 

ISBN: 1-932582-27-4

22. Stalking. The National Center for Victims of Crime. 2004.

ISBN: 1-932582-30-4

23. Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders. Anthony 

A. Braga. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-31-2

24. Prescription Fraud. Julie Wartell and Nancy G. La Vigne. 

2004. ISBN: 1-932582-33-9 

25. Identity Theft. Graeme R. Newman. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-35-3

26. Crimes Against Tourists. Ronald W. Glesnor and Kenneth J. 

Peak. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-36-3

27. Underage Drinking. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-39-8

28. Street Racing. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-42-8

29. Cruising. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-43-6

30. Disorder at Budget Motels. Karin Schmerler. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-41-X

31. Drug Dealing in Open-Air Markets. Alex Harocopos and 

Mike Hough. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-45-2

32. Bomb Threats in Schools. Graeme R. Newman. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-46-0

33. Illicit Sexual Activity in Public Places. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 

2005. ISBN: 1-932582-47-9

34. Robbery of Taxi Drivers. Martha J. Smith. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-50-9

35. School Vandalism and Break-Ins. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 

2005. ISBN: 1-9325802-51-7

36. Drunk Driving. Michael S. Scott, Nina J. Emerson, Louis B. 

Antonacci, and Joel B. Plant. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-57-6

37. Juvenile Runaways. Kelly Dedel. 2006. ISBN: 1932582-56-8

38. The Exploitation of Trafficked Women. Graeme R. 

Newman. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-59-2
The Problem of Stolen Goods Markets 55

39. Student Party Riots. Tamara D. Madensen and John E. Eck. 

2006. ISBN: 1-932582-60-6

40. People with Mental Illness. Gary Cordner. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-63-0

41. Child Pornography on the Internet. Richard Wortley and 

Stephen Smallbone. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-65-7

42. Witness Intimidation. Kelly Dedel. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-67-3

43. Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites.

Rachel Boba and Roberto Santos. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-00-2

44. Disorder at Day Laborer Sites. Rob Guerette. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-72-X

45. Domestic Violence. Rana Sampson. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-74-6

46. Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and Driveways.

Todd Keister. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-76-2

47. Drive-By Shootings. Kelly Dedel. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-77-0

48. Bank Robbery. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-78-9

49. Robbery of Convenience Stores. Alicia Altizio and Diana York. 

2007. ISBN: 1-932582-79-7

50. Traffic Congestion Around Schools. Nancy G. La Vigne. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-82-7

51. Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities. Justin A. Heinonen and John 

E. Eck. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-83-5

52. Bicycle Theft. Shane D. Johnson, Aiden Sidebottom, and Adam 

Thorpe. 2008. ISBN: 1-932582-87-8

53. Abandoned Vehicles. Michael G. Maxfield. 2008. 

ISBN: 1-932582-88-6

54. Spectator Violence in Stadiums. Tamara D. Madensen and John 

E. Eck. 2008. ISBN: 1-932582-89-4

55. Child Abuse and Neglect in the Home. Kelly Dedel. 2010.

ISBN: 978-1-935676-00-3

56. Homeless Encampments. Sharon Chamard. 2010.

ISBN: 978-1-935676-01-0

57. Stolen Goods Markets. Michael Sutton. 2010. 

ISBN: 978-1-935676-09-6

58. Theft of Scrap Metal. Brandon R. Kooi. 2010. 

ISBN: 978-1-935676-12-6
56 Stolen Goods Markets

59. Street Robbery. Khadija M. Monk, Justin A. Heinonen, and 

John E. Eck. 2010. ISBN: 978-1-935676-13-3

60. Theft of Customers' Personal Property in Cafés and Bars.

Shane D. Johnson, Kate J. Bowers, Lorraine Gamman, Loreen

Mamerow, and Anna Warne. 2010. ISBN: 978-1-935676-15-7

Response Guides series:

1. The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns. 

Michael S. Scott. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-24-X

2. Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime: Should You 

Go Down This Road? Ronald V. Clarke. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-41-X

3. Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety 

Problems. Michael S. Scott and Herman Goldstein. 2005.

ISBN: 1-932582-55-X

4. Video Surveillance of Public Places. Jerry Ratcliffe. 2006 

ISBN: 1-932582-58-4

5. Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns. 

Emmanuel Barthe. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-66-5

6. Sting Operations. Graeme R. Newman with assistance of 

Kelly Socia. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-84-3

7. Asset Forfeiture. John L. Worall. 2008

ISBN: 1-932582-90-8

8. Improving Street Lighting to Reduce Crime in Residential

Areas. Ronald V. Clarke. 2008. ISBN: 1-932582-91-6

9. Dealing With Crime and Disorder in Urban Parks. 

Jim Hilborn. 2009. ISBN: 1-932582-92-4

10. Assigning Police Officers to Schools. Barbara Raymond. 

2010. ISBN: 978-1-935676-14-0
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 57

Problem-Solving Tools series: 

1. Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory Guide 

for Police Problem-Solvers. John E. Eck. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-19-3

2. Researching a Problem. Ronald V. Clarke and Phyllis A. 

Schultz. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-48-7

3. Using Offender Interviews to Inform Police ProblemSolving. Scott H. Decker. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-49-5

4. Analyzing Repeat Victimization. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 

2005. ISBN: 1-932582-54-1

5. Partnering with Businesses to Address Public Safety 

Problems. Sharon Chamard. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-62-2

6. Understanding Risky Facilities. Ronald V. Clarke and John E. 

Eck. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-75-4

7. Implementing Responses to Problems. Rick Brown and 

Michael S. Scott. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-80-0

8. Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in 

Problem-Solving. Diane Zahm. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-81-9

9. Enhancing the Problem-Solving Capacity of Crime Analysis 

Units. Matthew B. White. 2008. 

ISBN: 1-932582-85-1

10. Analyzing Crime Displacement and Diffusion.

Rob T Guerette. 2009. ISBN: 1-932582-93-2

Special Publications:

Crime Analysis for Problem Solvers in 60 Small Steps,

Ronald V. Clarke and John Eck, 2005. ISBN:1-932582-52-5

Policing Terrorism: An Executive's Guide. 

Graeme R. Newman and Ronald V. Clarke. 2008.

Effective Policing and Crime Prevention: A ProblemOriented Guide for Mayors, City Managers, and County 

Executives. Joel B. Plant and Michael S. Scott. 2009. 
58 Stolen Goods Markets

Upcoming Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides

Aggressive Driving

Missing Persons

Stranger Rape

Theft of Vehicles for Export

Problem-Solving Tools

Understanding Repeat Offending

Special Publications

Intelligence Analysis and Problem-Solving

Problem-Oriented Policing Implementation Manual

For a complete and up-to-date listing of all available POP Guides, 

see the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing web site at 

www.popcenter.org. 

For more information about the Problem-Oriented Guides 

for Police series and other COPS Office publications, call the 

COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770, via e-mail at 

askCOPSRC@usdoj.gov, or visit COPS Online 

at www.cops.usdoj.gov. 
Center for Problem-Oriented Policing

Got a Problem? We’ve got answers!

Log onto the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing website at 

www.popcenter.org for a wealth of information to help you deal 

more effectively with crime and disorder in your community, 

including:

•	 Web-enhanced versions of all currently available Guides

•	 Interactive training exercises

•	 On-line access to research and police practices

Designed for police and those who work with them to address 

community problems, www.popcenter.org is a great resource in 

problem-oriented policing.

Supported by the Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services, U.S. Department of Justice.
Stolen Goods Markets begins by describing the problem of stolen 

goods markets, then provides advice on how best to analyze local, 

national, or international stolen goods markets; reviews tactics 

that you can use to detect those involved in stealing, dealing, and 

using stolen goods; and suggests ways to assess the tactics’ likely 

effectiveness in specific situations and locations.

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

1100 Vermont Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20530

To obtain details on COPS programs, call the

COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770

Visit COPS online at www.cops.usdoj.gov

March 2010

e031022263

ISBN: 978-1-935676-09-6