True crime buffs who have been following our tale of the Dangerous Duo who ripped off a Forever 21 store will be glad to see another installment: Hair Balls spoke to Nat Reifler, a partner in the Florida firm of Palmer Reifler, which recovers money for big retailers like Wal-Mart and Walgreenโ€™s, in addition to Forever 21.

First, Reifler told us the firm initially demanded $500 each from the families; the amount increased only after the letters were allegedly ignored. However, Reifler said he was revisiting the issue to see if $1,500 is a reasonable demand for the theft of merchandise totaling $25-$50.

Reifler also says the civil recovery process is in the best interest of not only the retailer, but for consumers.

Says Reifler: โ€œDuring a tough economy when [retailers are] trying to watch their bottom lineโ€ฆas the margins come down further and further, this is one way for them to help recover some of the money [from] the people that are committing the act of theft, as opposed to the honest consumer thatโ€™s out shopping. So in one sense, it helps keep retail prices down.โ€ (Apparently, civil recoveryโ€™s effectiveness in this respect is shown by the complete absence of overpriced tchotskes at the mall โ€“ they simply donโ€™t exist).

He says retailers often operate under such thin profit margins that โ€œIf an item costs $5 and itโ€™s stolen, they may have to sell 100 or 200 more dollars that day just to cover for that specific cost.โ€

Civil recovery also makes a good deterrent, according to Reifler, who says, โ€œIf everyone was allowed to try to take something and all they had to do was give back the merchandise, then it would not send a good signal.โ€

However, John Ventura, director of the Texas Consumer Complaint Center at the University of Houston Law Center, questions civil recoveryโ€™s effectiveness as a deterrent. He asks if retailers are posting notices in their stores, alerting potential shoplifters to the possibility of civil recovery.

Ventura also says, โ€œfor a long time, I think that [retailers] just considered it part of the cost of doing business. And the way that they compensated themselves for it, is that they allowed in the pricing of their merchandiseโ€ฆto pass the cost on to consumers as a whole.โ€ (Pretty cynical, if you ask us. $20 for a CD is a totally reasonable price โ€“ do you know how expensive CDs are to make?!)

But one thing Reifler wants people to know: civil recovery is not extortion.

โ€œMaking a request for civil damages based in statutes in exchange for a person not being sued civilly is not extortion,โ€ he says. โ€œSome people may not like it or may feel itโ€™s unfair, but extortion typically would involve the threat of criminal prosecution in exchange for a civil payment, or the threat of bodily injury in exchange for a request for civil payment.โ€

So just to clarify: demanding money from someone who has not been charged with a crime and who has not incurred a debt, in exchange for not being sued, is absolutely, positively, supercalifradulously not extortion. Capisce?

Craig Malisow