Which scenario demonstrates the specific presumption regarding catalytic converters removed from a vehicle?

• A. The property is represented as stolen by a law enforcement agent to the actor, and the actor believes it was stolen by another
• B. The owner consents to the transfer
• C. The actor possesses the converters in the ordinary course of business
• D. The property is recovered by police after theft

Answer: (A)

The scenario hinges on a specific presumption about possessing stolen property. When law enforcement agents present property as stolen to a person and the person believes it was stolen by someone else, the law recognizes a presumption that the person knew the property was stolen. This helps establish mens rea for receiving stolen property, making it prima facie evidence that the possessor knowingly dealt with stolen catalytic converters.

This fits best because it directly triggers the presumption by using a representation of theft by another and the actor’s belief in that representation. The other options don’t activate this presumption: the owner’s consent negates theft, possession in the ordinary course of business can be legitimate with proper licensing, and police recovering stolen property doesn’t address the recipient’s knowledge or the presumption about possession.