Mountain climber finds treasure chest on glacier

[Crothian]

So why mention sentimentality? Do not tell meyou find this immoral to the point that nostalgia needs to be protection of the law.

The law is not protecting nostalgia. It is protecting rightful ownership of an item I'm assuming. Again, I'm not up to date on French Laws and reasons behind them.

 

[Kramodlog]

So why mention the emotional attachment someone has a for a mear object?

 

[Crothian]

It fit that part of the conversation. Objects can have more then monetary value. You said the finder should keep the items and I was just looking at it from a different viewpoint that of the family of the person or persons who died in the crash.

 

[Kramodlog]

Meh, it is more than 50 years ago. They grieved. People are too attached to objects and people.

 

[sabrinathecat]

Depends on the objects. Some might have archeological or historical value. And if you are looking to sell the objects in question, it would seem that the family members are a likely place to start.
But if it is just old gold bars or some such, well, cash is cash. Check with local salvage laws.

 

[Kramodlog]

These are jewels, like said in the OP and the linked article.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

I would have kept the jewels and sold them at a later date. There is a lot of corruption in India and it's government. Chances are someone will fake some documents and keep the jewels. The family of the person that died in the plane crash won't get the jewels. I might as well get it rather than some corrupt government official. I'll at least put the money to good use.

 

[MarkB]

For someone who isn't a professional criminal, trying to sell a load of precious stones without being able to provide provenance is likely to be difficult, and he'd probably get nowhere near what they were worth. Given that they look to be uncut stones, even just trying to get them valued without attracting attention would be tricky. And all the while, he'd run the risk of arrest and prosecution.

Even if you remove the moral dimension, declaring the find and hoping to get back either the stones or a finder's fee is likely a better option even on a purely risk/reward basis.

 

[Janx]

For someone who isn't a professional criminal, trying to sell a load of precious stones without being able to provide provenance is likely to be difficult, and he'd probably get nowhere near what they were worth. Given that they look to be uncut stones, even just trying to get them valued without attracting attention would be tricky. And all the while, he'd run the risk of arrest and prosecution.

Even if you remove the moral dimension, declaring the find and hoping to get back either the stones or a finder's fee is likely a better option even on a purely risk/reward basis.

That is the kind of logical answer on why something is a bad idea that I like to see.

It's illegal! It's wrong! is arbitrary and artificial constraints placed by others.

It'll be hard to sell and get the money is the fact of the situation that makes keeping them a bad idea.

 

[Kramodlog]

Even if hard to sell, it doesn't he me won't be able. People are too lazy and have low expectations.