This is nonsense, and typical layman logic when it comes to matters involving abandoned property and theft when on another premises. It is not even remotely inline with reality. In almost any jurisdiction in the US, one has legal recourse when someone takes their money or property. Whether it's in the other's control or not, it's still just as equally defined as theft.

In this case, it's a reasonable approximation.

If property is the subject of a reasonable dispute-- e.g. whether a contractual term applies-- whomever is holding the property has the upper hand. Especially if the amount of property/money is small compared to the probable cost of litigation and especially so if one is unlikely to recover legal fees.

To be pedantic, if you take stuff you already have control over, isn't that embezzlement rather than theft?

In any case, I agree with https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33063096

> > Possession is 9/10ths of the law

> This is nonsense,

ORLY?

When PayPal closes people's accounts and keeps the money, in what percentage of cases do you think the people eventually get their money back?

My guess is far fewer than 10%.

It's a quote from Roger Stone, and likely a joke.

That saying is far older than Roger Stone and since GP didn't attribute it I fail to see why you would think he was quoting Roger Stone specifically.

It's not completely nonsense, but maybe it kind of dances around the point. 99% of the time people don't have any legal access whatsoever because it's much too costly. Practically, people only have legal protection in catastrophic scenarios, where they have no choice but to pay exorbitant fees. So good luck getting your property back in 9/10 cases.