It was like something out of a Seinfeld episode from seventh season, an episode that originally aired back in May 1996. One of the characters, Newman, learns that bottles and cans can be refunded for ten cents in Michigan, as opposed to 5 cents in other states.
Kramer informs him that it would be impossible to gain profit from doing this, since the travel to Michigan from New York would exact heavy costs in terms of gas, toll booths and truck rental fees. However, Newman becomes obsessed with finding a way to make a scheme work.
Eventually he signs up for a mail truck that would carry spillover mail from the other four main trucks for Mother’s Day, and there would be space for bottles and cans to refund in Michigan. Kramer realizes that this plan avoids the expensive truck rental fees, and they set off collecting cans and bottles around New York.
Of course, Michigan law has some kickers, such as prohibiting the return of bottles from out of state, and any bottle returns cannot be in excess of $25. Through some comic adventures, their scheme is foiled.
But what happened in real life in Yolo County is no laughing matter, as Gilberto and Gabriela Mendoza face four felony charges of conspiracy, grand theft and two counts of unlawful recycling, for a scheme which apparently brought them $80,000 in payments from a recycling center for bringing in cans that the State Attorney General’s Office claims originated in Nevada.
A preliminary hearing was held on Friday in Judge Timothy Fall’s Yolo County courtroom.
According to testimony from Walt Schere of Cal Recyling, California has put a 5-cent fee at the time of purchase on each can in order to encourage recycling. Without the CRV (California Refund Value, the purchase fee; also California Redemption Value to denote the return from recycling centers, which may sometimes differ from the purchase fee) program, cans would only fetch the scrap value that right now is about $1 per pound. In Nevada, which lacks such a program, $1 per pound is precisely the return that recycling nets.
According to Mr. Schere, there are fraud schemes in which individuals will go into other states, acquire cans at a high scrap value, and bring them into California. Unlike Michigan, California limits the amount of cans to 500 pounds (rather than just $25). Mr. Schere testified that for every 1000 pounds, an individual can make $700 for bringing cans illegally over the border.
ID is required for any recycling return of more than $100. He also testified, under-cross examination, that if an individual has an out-of-state license plate, they limit the refund to $50 per transaction, since there are only limited ways to tell the actual state of origin – one being a stamp at the bottom of the can that tells when and where the purchase occurred.
Special Agent William Lee, of the California Department of Justice Major Crimes unit, said that the Mendozas got on their radar as they began to receive tips about a business involving a storage unit in Reno. They had purchased an ad on Craig’s List offering $1.20 per pound from the public.
While Special Agent Lee never was able to directly witness the Mendozas involved in this enterprise, the storage manager told him they were evicted because they had conducted business in and around their storage unit, which was in violation of the rental agreement.
At another location, again Special Agent Lee never witnessed the Mendozas with cans, but he saw vehicles registered in their name with cans, the manager confirmed that they had a recycling business, and there were cans in vehicles dozens of times.
Special Agent Lee never observed the Mendozas coming into California. However, Mr. Schere was able to show a string of 250 pound reports linked to a recycling company in West Sacramento. These reports are mandated for all returns of greater than 250 pounds.
These reports showed that Mr. Mendoza had recycled 65 times at the West Sacramento location from February 2009 until January 2011. The value of those recycling refunds was $44,645.
Mrs. Mendoza had recycled 52 times for $35,148 worth of value.
The Mendozas were arrested in their Reno, Nevada, home. They admitted to having recycled in Califronia at least 10 times. They claimed to have stopped when they found out it was illegal to do so.
They were doing it to make ends meet, as they were having problems with their business.
They claimed to have recycled both in West Sacramento and Susanville. However, Special Agent Lee testified that he found no 250 pound reports from Susanville either bearing the name of the Mendozas or using their vehicles (which would be logged upon refund of values over $100).
Mr. Young of the AG’s office had trouble getting the evidence in, due to a string of foundation objections that were sustained by Yolo County Judge Fall.
However, Judge Fall held the Mendozas to answer for all four charges. He ruled that while this was all circumstantial evidence, it was still evidence and for the purposes of a preliminary hearing there was probable cause to believe that a crime took place.
The Mendozas will be arraigned on September 30 at 9 am.
While the defense did not put on any witnesses in the preliminary hearing, Public Defender Dean Johansson argued that there was no corpus delicti proven in this case – no evidence that the defendants intended to break the law or even knew the law.
He argued that Mrs. Mendoza admitted that she stopped when she learned this was illegal. Therefore, he argued where’s the intent needed to prove a conspiracy.
However, Judge Fall argued that the law does not require knowledge that they have broken the law to form intent, all that is required is intent to perform a specific action and there is evidence that they had an intent to recycle these cans.
The defense also pointed out that there were holes in the prosecution’s case. While the prosecution knew that they were collecting cans in Nevada and turning in cans in California, they never established a link between the two actions. No one saw them cross the border with the cans. The prosecution never showed that the cans returned in California originated in Nevada.
Ignorance of the law is obviously not an excuse to break the law. However, the Mendozas speak limited English at best, and they utilized Spanish interpreters during court. There were also, at best, limited opportunities to know what the law was.
Mr. Schere testified under cross that, while some recycling centers have warnings about out-of-state cans, not all do and he does not know if West Sacramento or Susanville have posted warnings. He testified that he had no specific knowledge of whether the defendants were given notices or warnings about out-of-state cans.
Moreover, Mr. Schere testified under cross that they limit returns to $50 refunds per transaction for people with out-of-state license plates. Did the vehicles that the Mendozas were using have out-of-state license plates? If so, how were they able to get $500 to $1000 per transaction?
The bottom line, then, is that while the Mendozas likely broke state laws regarding recycling, circumstantial as the evidence was, the bigger question is whether they knew they were committing criminal acts or simply, like Newman and Kramer, thinking they had found an ingenious scheme.
However, this is clearly something that the state takes very seriously. Back in 2010, then-Attorney General Jerry Brown announced in a press release they had shut down three beverage-container recycling fraud rings in which rogue entrepreneurs trucked millions of cans and bottles from Arizona and Nevada to illegally claim California Redemption Value refunds. They estimated the rings had defrauded the state out of $3.5 million and thirty-one individuals were arrested in connection with these fraudulent activities.
Attorney General Brown said at the time, “Defrauding the state’s recycling program is not a way to make easy money. We are looking for you and you will be caught.”
Conviction of redemption fraud and the importation of recyclable materials is a felony if the redemption amount is over $400.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Perhaps the cash for can program should be eliminated, ending the motivation to do stuff like this. The cash for can program started before all of the elaborate curbside recycle programs were implemented. I see people taking cans out of the recycle containers – the program generally encourages cheating.
That’s an interesting point. Certainly we see people recycling quite a bit with things that do not have return value as well.
Maybe they could just repay the $80,000 obtained illegally?
I would accept elimination of the cash for recycled cans if and when they abolish the CRV fee on each can purchased containing a beverage.
[quote]Ignorance of the law is obviously not an excuse to break the law. However, the Mendozas speak limited English at best, and they utilized Spanish interpreters during court. There were also, at best, limited opportunities to know what the law was.[/quote]
I don’t think speaking limited English limits people ability to recognize when they are running a scam. Did they seek legal council for their business venture prior to starting out. Open a Thrifty Nickle and contact an attorney that advertises in Spanish.
[quote]While the defense did not put on any witnesses in the preliminary hearing, Public Defender Dean Johansson argued that there was no corpus delicti proven in this case – no evidence that the defendants intended to break the law or even knew the law.
He argued that Mrs. Mendoza admitted that she stopped when she learned this was illegal. Therefore, he argued where’s the intent needed to prove a conspiracy.
However, Judge Fall argued that the law does not require knowledge that they have broken the law to form intent, all that is required is intent to perform a specific action and there is evidence that they had an intent to recycle these cans.[/quote]
[quote]Ignorance of the law is obviously not an excuse to break the law. However, the Mendozas speak limited English at best, and they utilized Spanish interpreters during court. There were also, at best, limited opportunities to know what the law was.[/quote]
From wikipedia:
[quote]The rationale of the doctrine [ignorance of the law is no excuse] is that if ignorance were an excuse, a person charged with criminal offenses or a subject of a civil lawsuit would merely claim that he or she is unaware of the law in question to avoid liability, even though the person really does know what the law in question is. Thus, the law imputes knowledge of all laws to all persons within the jurisdiction no matter how transiently. Even though it would be impossible, even for someone with substantial legal training, to be aware of every law in operation in every aspect of a state’s activities, this is the price paid to ensure that willful blindness cannot become the basis of exculpation. Thus, it is well settled that persons engaged in any undertakings outside what is common for a normal person, such as running a nuclear power plant, will make themselves aware of the laws necessary to engage in that undertaking. If they do not, they cannot complain if they incur liability.
The doctrine assumes that the law in question has been properly published and distributed, for example, by being printed in a government gazette, made available over the internet, or printed in volumes available for sale to the public at affordable prices.
In the criminal law, although ignorance may not clear a defendant of guilt, it can be a consideration in sentencing, particularly where the law is unclear or the defendant sought advice from law enforcement or regulatory officials. For example, in one Canadian case, a person was charged with being in possession of gambling devices after they had been advised by customs officials that it was legal to import such devices into Canada.[citation needed] Although the defendant was convicted, the sentence was an absolute discharge.[/quote]
[i]”Perhaps the cash for can program should be eliminated, ending the motivation to do stuff like this.”[/i]
I strongly disagree with this. The cash for cans program not only has helped keep public places free from this sort of trash, which used to be a serious problem, but it gives a good number of very poor people a way to make a little money.
[i]”I see people taking cans out of the recycle containers – the program generally encourages cheating.”[/i]
I am probably in the minority on this, but I have no problem if some homeless guy comes by my recycling bin in the middle of the night–we put our trash and recycling out on Monday nights for Tuesday morning pick-up–and takes out a few items which he can turn in for money.
The only real problem I have with the cash for cans recycling program is at the recycling center itself. Last week, I experience what has become typical for me. I had maybe 6 cases of empty bottles of Heineken and Sierra Nevada stored up. I drove them over to the center next to Save-Mart on Anderson Road. There was a line of maybe 6 people, some students, some homeless. The people in line had very large quantities of bottles and cans and so on. After 10 minutes of waiting, with the line not moving at all, I decided the small amount of money I was going to get for my bottles was just not worth it to me. So I just left my bottles in line and drove away. I hope the person who cashed them in was truly needy. Fortunately, a couple bucks for bottles doesn’t mean anything to me.
[img]http://display.ubercomments.com/6/658.jpg[/img]
[quote]I see people taking cans out of the recycle containers – the program generally encourages cheating.[/quote]
Once the toter hits the streets isn’t it fair game? That is how police can gather evidence on a “trash run.”
Rich,
You may be in the minority, but you are certainly not alone in not begrudging my recyclables to anyone who may need the money and is enterprising enough to go through my recyle bin, or those of the city or campus. It costs me nothing and may make their life a little easier.
Rich, I totally agree with you and you may not be as far in the minority as you think. I have never had a problem with someone going through my recyclables after I put the can out, although I do know a couple of people who will call the police. They’re being recycled and they’re not piling up in my side yard. It’s all good if someone is making use of them to earn a bit of money. I figure a person has to be pretty down and out to go digging through cans in the middle of the night. I have driven my grandsons to the center by Save Mart many times and found it closed. Now I take them directly to DWR to do their recycling.
One or two people with a shopping cart or plastic bag on a bike is not a big deal. But organized people with trucks can have a fiscal impact, whether they intend to break the law or not, on municipal services. Bigger cities have studied this.
But our entire consumption / throw out society / garbage pattern is completely backwards anyway. People throw out way too much stuff, and the cost of disposal / landfill is disproportionately low. That can’t last forever.
As I understand it, the situation may have been a bit overplayed back in 2010 and this situation probably is a bit overplayed as well. You’re talking about a profit of $700 for every thousand pounds. That doesn’t seem like it’s a huge profit to be had.
[quote]Rich, I totally agree with you and you may not be as far in the minority as you think. I have never had a problem with someone going through my recyclables after I put the can out, although I do know a couple of people who will call the police. They’re being recycled and they’re not piling up in my side yard. It’s all good if someone is making use of them to earn a bit of money. I figure a person has to be pretty down and out to go digging through cans in the middle of the night. I have driven my grandsons to the center by Save Mart many times and found it closed. Now I take them directly to DWR to do their recycling.[/quote]
It is my understanding that when recylables are taken from trash bins, it deprives the city of revenue, and is the reason this is against the law.
Agreed, Elaine. And I understand the reason for the law, but I would hope that the DPD has more important issues to deal with than someone digging through someone elses cans or bottles. Sure, the city loses out on a bit of revenue, but for the person taking the recyclables it could mean being able to buy milk or diapers.
Maybe there are certain things that shouldn’t been seen as a source of revenue.
David
Maybe there are certain things that we, as a society, guarantee that people have, so no one would need to dig through trash bins.
I also agree with Rifkin and others that if recycles will help someone financially who might otherwise be unemployed, maybe we ought to think about changing this law. With unemployment staying so high, I would rather see people working for some money and using their creativity.
This helps us a couple of ways:
1. Cleaning up recycles helps the environment. So I would hate to discourage recycling efforts.
2. These people have chosen to do the work involved in recycling–collecting, transporting, and putting those cans/bottles in the recycle machines which is not easy/fun work. If someone wants to take my recycles and reclaim them for their value in weight, go ahead. I would rather see this type of work ethic than someone who is asking for a handout and does no work.
Taking these “recycle criminals” to court has cost us taxpayers how much money? How many cans would we have to recycle to reclaim the money wasted on this court case?
[quote]It is my understanding that when recylables are taken from trash bins, it deprives the city of revenue, and is the reason this is against the law. [/quote]
It would seem to me that a violation of the CO is theft and as such would be a misdemeanor, must be observed by an officer of the law (or another “citizen” may “arrest”). If the act occurs during the day & a citizen reports to city staff, probably a supervisor may respond and retrieve the city’s property. If police are available when such a low level offense occurs they may respond and may cite the offender.