THE TWO PRESENT MAJOR LAW ENFORCEMENT STRATEGIES AGAINST THEFT ARE THE APPREHENDING OF THIEVES AND THEIR FENCES (THOSE BUYING STOLEN GOODS TO RESELL THEM). HOWEVER, COMBINING THE TWO APPROACHES HAS LITTLE EFFECT ON THE INCIDENCE OF THEFT. CHANNELING STOLEN PROPERTY OFTEN INVOLVES MANY PARTICIPANTS, SOME OF WHOM MAY NOT BE AWARE OF THE PROPERTY'S BEING STOLEN. INVESTIGATING THIEVES ALONE DOES NOT MUCH REDUCE THEFT SINCE THE USUAL LAPSE OF TIME BETWEEN THE THEFT AND INVESTIGATION FAVORS THIEVES, AND THE HUGE MARKET FOR RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY REMAINS UNTOUCHED. HOWEVER, ATTEMPTING TO APPREHEND FENCES IS DIFFICULT, AS COMPLAINANTS ARE NOT INVOLVED. INFORMATION MUST THEREFORE COME FROM UNDERCOVER AGENTS OR FROM THIEVES WHO MUST USUALLY BE GRANTED IMMUNITY BEFORE THEY WILL TESTIFY. NEVERTHELESS, COMBATTING THEFT MIGHT BE GREATLY ENHANCED BY CONCENTRATING SOME LAW ENFORCEMENT RESOURCES ON CITIZENS KNOWINGLY PURCHASING STOLEN GOODS FOR CONSUMPTION (SECONDARY PURCHASERS). SINCE THESE PURCHASERS BUY STOLEN GOODS MAINLY BECAUSE THE PRICE IS LOW, IT IS ARGUED THAT THEY SHOULD BE EASIER TO DETER AND DETECT. FURTHER, REDUCING ANY ELEMENT IN THE CHAIN OF STEALING AND DISTRIBUTING STOLEN GOODS AFFECTS THE AMOUNT OF THEFT. HOWEVER, SOME CHANGES IN STATUTES ABOUT RECEIVING AND IN LAW ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY WILL BE NECESSARY. STATUTES HINDERING ENFORCEMENT AGAINST FENCES ALSO HINDER ENFORCEMENT AGAINST SECONDARY PURCHASERS. UNDERCOVER AGENTS POSING AS THIEVES MOST SUCCESSFULLY ENFORCE AGAINST FENCES AND PURCHASERS; STATUTES FOSTERING THESE OPERATIONS ARE DESCRIBED AND SHOULD BE ENACTED WHERE ABSENT. FINALLY, SECONDARY PURCHASERS SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN THE STIFF SENTENCES THAT WOULD ONLY HINDER THEIR BEING PROSECUTED. FOOTNOTES ARE INCLUDED.