Osprey MK4 - Legal?

Which people, when, and how much trouble?


I cant give you references for what GeorgePlayAirsoft is talking about but i remember back around 2012 there was a lot of dramas with UK and US kit being found on dead Taliban fighters. The kit was acquired in the US and UK and sent out to them. 

I'm not sure owning any of the kit is an actual offence but i do know at least from the military side of things selling it or "losing" it is.

A mate of mine wrote his motor off on the the old A1 a few years ago and because the civvy bizzys found his GSR in the boot the CoC got extremely twitchy that he may have had other ACTO in the boot which got nicked before they got to the motor. 

He didn't but he got bounced hard for it.

 
Which people, when, and how much trouble?


"He was handed a 12 month sentence, suspended for two years. He was also given a curfew, preventing him from leaving the house between 10pm and 7am, as well as being ordered to pay £852 in costs and carry out 200 hours of unpaid work."

https://www.ilkestonadvertiser.co.uk/news/crime/ebay-soldier-is-spared-prison-1-3971247

"Barratt, who was dishonourably discharged from the Army last month, was jailed for 20 months."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-mid-wales-25741146

"He [Stevens] was jailed for two years today, along with Davenport who received 22 months and Suffield who was given an 18 month sentence suspended for two years."

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2410242/soldiers-sentenced-kit-stolen-explosives-night-vision-goggles-sas-base-sold/

There was (at least) a RMP investigation into stolen goods called operation embroil not specific to night vision but gives you an idea I suppose. 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/stolen-military-hardware-being-sold-off-on-ebay-7687501.html 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Probably best not steal it and sell it then.

Who has been prosecuted and convicted for buying and owning it?

 
The chap in the first link did, those were just what i found on google. Let me know if you find any yourself

 
Word counts: 

"Sold" / "sell" / "selling": 7 times

"Bought" / "own" / "owned": 0 times

Who has been prosecuted and convicted for buying and owning, rather than selling?

 
The chap in the first link did, those were just what i found on google. Let me know if you find any yourself
His offence was handling stolen goods 

Word counts: 

"Sold" / "sell" / "selling": 7 times

"Bought" / "own" / "owned": 0 times

Who has been prosecuted and convicted for buying and owning, rather than selling?
In those cases it’s not particularly the buying & selling but how they had acquired them

In this other case the problem is the nature of the items rather than the theft:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-40774233

 
As in "what, you telling me these military issue gen 3+ nvg's that I bought from a geezer in the pub for £300 are nicked ?, Surely not"

?

 
As in "what, you telling me these military issue gen 3+ nvg's that I bought from a geezer in the pub for £300 are nicked ?, Surely not"

?


You didn't haggle? Or ask for a VAT receipt? ?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Word counts: 

"Sold" / "sell" / "selling": 7 times

"Bought" / "own" / "owned": 0 times

Who has been prosecuted and convicted for buying and owning, rather than selling?


Think you have missed the woods for the trees, though its good to see how your amazing brain works behind the scenes. Ctl+f. Genius.

 
Truth is the mod/MP's prosecute what they catch/prove on the inside (with the obvious exception of civilians workers), everything on the outside is down to the regional CPS, who will generally only pursue what they feel they can guarantee the outcome............there's a reason why the best prosecutors become defence barristers, & the rest work for the CPS lol ? .

If they can't prove your the man that walked the kit off of mod property, or as a buyer you did so KNOWING it was hot, there's little or no case to answer/pursue.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What Tackle said guys, this is fairly basic stuff under the Theft Act (can't remember which year but it was the 60s) - basically if the courts can prove you likely knew something's stolen property, you can be charged with handling stolen goods.

If a man walks into a pub and offers me a Rolex for £100 - something very clearly far from a normal sale of a genuine Rolex - It could be argued in court that I would have surely known it was either a dodgy watch, or stolen off someone's wrist an hour earlier. I would be prosecuted for handling stolen goods. 

If someone was to sell me the Rolex at a jeweler or similar, with a certificate of authenticity and any other required paperwork etc. before the police informing me the watch was stolen the month prior, I would be unlikely to be charged with handling stolen goods nor would I likely get convicted of the offense if it did go to court (imo, standard caveats apply)

The same, imo, applies for Airsoft and military goods. As an airsofter with interest in military kit in general, my general knowledge around kit, where it was issued, what's surplus etc., is higher than the average person. If I were to see some AN/PVS21s being sold on Ebay for far, far less than they're worth, purchase them and get interviewed by the police, I'd imagine they would be able to eventually establish that I had a reasonable belief that those goggles could be stolen. The rest is up to the courts, and whether they can secure the conviction. 

E: Just checked, Theft Act 1968

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

 
^^^

That, basically.   Even in the context of goods that have been stolen, Theft Act 1968 S22 handling stolen goods requires "knowing or believing them to be stolen goods".

Everyone loves a good story about how their mate's uncle's cousin's lad got banged up for 50 years, but reminder, the topic is whether it's legal to buy Osprey MK4.

Apply the Clapham Omnibus test.  Would a typical member of the general public know whether any particular item of MOD kit has hit the surplus market yet?  Bear in mind that there is a surplus market, it's perfectly normal to buy ex MOD gear.  As an interested person, how would I even find out what's been sold on and what's not?  Where are the regulations, where is the list?

Buying from a retailer who is openly marketing an item would be a fairly strong argument that you didn't believe it to be stolen (even if it was).  Buying the exact same item out of a car boot behind a pub, well, not so much.

 
^^^

That, basically.   Even in the context of goods that have been stolen, Theft Act 1968 S22 handling stolen goods requires "knowing or believing them to be stolen goods".

Everyone loves a good story about how their mate's uncle's cousin's lad got banged up for 50 years, but reminder, the topic is whether it's legal to buy Osprey MK4.

Apply the Clapham Omnibus test.  Would a typical member of the general public know whether any particular item of MOD kit has hit the surplus market yet?  Bear in mind that there is a surplus market, it's perfectly normal to buy ex MOD gear.  As an interested person, how would I even find out what's been sold on and what's not?  Where are the regulations, where is the list?

Buying from a retailer who is openly marketing an item would be a fairly strong argument that you didn't believe it to be stolen (even if it was).  Buying the exact same item out of a car boot behind a pub, well, not so much.
A very pertinent point, how to know what's fair game, you'd have to be a fairly anal stitchcounter to know at a glance what gen most modern kit is, never mind whether it's been released in to the public domain, I definitely wouldn't know.

 
That's fine, but to clear up any misunderstanding:

Word counts: 

"Sold" / "sell" / "selling": 7 times

"Bought" / "own" / "owned": 0 times

Who has been prosecuted and convicted for buying and owning, rather than selling?




As GeorgePlaysAirsoft said this was genuinely a case of missing the woods for the trees; it's not about buying, or selling, it's knowing they're stolen goods. Andy from UCAP absolutely did commit an offense by buying the nods, it's just that the action of buying was packaged with the knowledge he was buying, then selling, stolen goods; buying and selling aren't mutually exclusive.

 
Last edited:
Yes, this will be of great interest and concern to anyone here intending to engage in the systematic commercial purchase and resale of MOD goods that they know to be stolen. 

However, I don't much care about warning any such person off from the consequences of their actions, and in fact look forward to hearing that they've been placed on Cell Wing Jihadi at Her Majesty's Pleasure.

 
I've totally skipped most of this topic but the plates would be classed as ACTO and therefore illegal, I believe.

The cover, however, should be fair game .

 
the plates would be classed as ACTO and therefore illegal, I believe


Where would we find the classification of ACTO, and for that matter, a definition of what it means?

Laws and offences aren't supposed to be secret.

 
I've totally skipped most of this topic but the plates would be classed as ACTO and therefore illegal, I believe.

The cover, however, should be fair game .
Pretty much yes - but not necessarily due to direct legislation.

EU regulations cover equipment with a ‘military purpose’ but there isn’t UK legislation.  (EU regulations do carry weight in the UK depending on their status as to being adopted or endorsed etc ......  and when we complete the transition may still apply depending upon the agreement and also what elements are brought into law)

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eu-legislation-and-uk-law

If someone really wants to pursue the matter then bodyarmour is highlighted within the following, but what level of legal restrictions there are for what levels of body armour could vary based on the reading of the complete relevant sections:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1583846978025&uri=CELEX:32009L0043#ntr3-L_2009146EN.01000101-E0003

The sale/purchase of military type equipment may be controlled but not necessarily illegal in itself.

ACTO covers ‘attractive to criminal and terrorist organisations’, this can be something that absolutely should not be available to the general public to something that is attractive to theft.  Airsofters, paintballers and collectors can be innocently interested in something, but other people could be more interested for other motives.

(There are also other ‘legitimate’ uses, for example the resurgence of body armour with wider use & development of Kevlar was due to the dangers experienced by pizza delivery guys - though if I felt the need to wear body armour to deliver pizza then I would opt for not delivering the pizza)

The ‘attractiveness’ of an item in the army can also just reflect its controls to minimise theft (and create an audit trail to identify that - as has been shown many things can end up being stolen - and people can get caught)

For Osprey, the chances are that there are legitimate genuine osprey vests out and about available for sale, but that current levels of protective inserts are less likely to be legitimate.  How they turned up to be available to the public would be the question.

To play airsoft though - there is a real question as to do you really need them? Why do you need Kevlar to protect yourself from a tiny plastic ball?  If you want your Osprey to ‘hang’ properly then this can be done with less weight and less expense, some foam, plastic card would do the job.

..... and then take yourself to one of the fogging threads because you’re sweating with all the extra weight and layers

Where would we find the classification of ACTO, and for that matter, a definition of what it means?

Laws and offences aren't supposed to be secret.
I think not.

ACTO not being a legal / illegal list, but following the assumption that if controlled then it hasn’t followed a legal path out as opposed to a specific item being illegal.

Back to the situation of whether something is bought in the pub or publicly

(that doesn’t always mean that an item sold in the pub is illegal - it could just be cheap rubbish being pushed with a bit of ‘frisson’ ...... I remember when it was commonplace to be offered watches in motorway services ...... just cheap rubbish with a bit of patter)

 
Andy from UCAP absolutely did commit an offense by buying the nods, it's just that the action of buying was packaged with the knowledge he was buying, then selling, stolen goods; buying and selling aren't mutually exclusive.


I wasn't aware this happened.. just read up on it now, I suppose I was fairly inactive around 2016 as I was setting up my business at the time.

I sort of knew Andy when I first got into airsoft; his site at liphook was my first regular spot.. I went down one weekend with my mate Adam and we helped him build a couple of bunker, pill box type things.

Did TA2 with him as well. 

....Damn ?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ACTO covers ‘attractive to criminal and terrorist organisations’


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-38336192

"Some of the stolen items were on an official list of items Attractive to Criminal and Terrorist Organisations (ACTO)"

Can anyone find this list, official or otherwise?  As far as I can see from here, it's a label applied to specific items, which may or may not be collated in a list somewhere.  If it is, it's not trivial to find.

And if it has any consequences in law, especially for innocent purchasers, then it should be.  If it's not clear, one of my pet peeves is secret "gotchya" laws.

 
Back
Top