Dog theft accomplice sues dog owner

[Catherine]

Why would the dog theft accomplice sue the dog owner? The dog owner offered a large reward to get her dogs back. It was more than the dogs were worth. 
The accomplice returned the dogs to the owner and tried to claim the reward.
In the actual robbery, the person walking the dogs was badly injured. The accomplice was charged and is on probation. She still thinks she should get the reward money.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/wom...-rcna72381

This is unbelievable. One of the criminals wants to be rewarded for returning the dogs. She only returned them because the reward was bigger than what she could get for selling the stolen dogs.
She actually thinks she is entitled to the money.
That is the most outrageous claim I have ever heard.

She is not going to get the money. If the law suit goes to court it would be interesting to be there.

[LPC]

It says in the article that the person claiming the reward had known those who stole the dogs for two years. So an even more important question is: have these aggressive people been arrested and charged? The article does not mention this.

The lady who "accepted stolen goods" is clearly an accessory to violent robbery and I would have thought should be charged with that offence, as well. The article only mentions that she "was charged with one count each of being an accessory after the fact and receiving stolen property." That puts it on a similar level to an antique dealer who accepts an article and then tries to sell it on. But the violent nature of the robbery seems to have been overlooked in the charges.

American law is a mystery to me. As for the idea that she could claim massive compensation under USA law, well - words fail me!

[Catherine]

I still can't believe this. As I understand American law, she is charged with knowingly accepting stolen goods. That is why she is on probation. 
They must not have had enough evidence to link her directly to the violent crime.  The fact that she knew whose dogs they were, makes me suspicious that she was in some way directly linked to the crime. She returned the dogs so she could get the reward. She had to know who owned the dogs  to know that there was a reward.

I can't believe they are even letting her sue the dog owner. How was that law suit even accepted by the system. 
She is on probation for a crime linked to the reward. This makes no sense at all.

I don't think Canadian law would let this happen. What about European law?

[LPC]

I'm not a lawyer, but I would imagine that any involvement with such a violent robbery, albeit as an accessory, would be very serious indeed. Much more is involved than merely handling stolen goods. The dog walker was shot and wounded. She knew the people who did it. She bought the dogs, knowing them to be stolen and knowing that extreme violence had been used in the robbery.

[Catherine]

I am surprised she isn't in jail. It must be for lack of evidence. This law suit might give them the evidence they need to charge her with more serious offenses.
She knew who owned the dogs. That is why she wants the reward. Doesn't that prove that she knew what happened and where the dogs came from. It was in the news for days. She came forward with the dogs when a large reward was offered. She had the dogs for days and did nothing to return them to their owner before that.