erik777
Sr. Member
 Offline
Activity: 504
Merit: 250
Earn with impressio.io
|
 |
February 13, 2014, 05:20:01 AM |
|
If a customer informs a gun shop that they need a buy a gun so they can rob bank, and the gun shop assists the customer in acquiring the gun, the gun shop has committed a crime even if the customer is stopped before they get to the bank and commit their crime.
Robbing a bank at gunpoint isn't a victimless crime, so knowingly assisting the thief in acquiring a gun for the purpose of robbing the bank isn't a victimless crime even if there is no actual bank robbery that occurs.
But what if there is no actual bank? Who's the victim? Robbing a bank at gunpoint isn't a victimless crime, so knowingly assisting the thief in acquiring a gun for the purpose of robbing the bank isn't a victimless crime even if there is no actual bank robbery that occurs.
Is there case law and a supreme court challenge establishing this? When there is a claim that someone assisted a crime, it is usually a real crime that occurred. It is bad enough that we've muddied the waters with conspiracy to commit a crime charges, which I've read some and been convinced that the accused in a few of these cases would never of tried to actually commit the alleged crimes. But, now you're suggesting assisting someone who is conspiring to commit a crime, creating additional degrees of separation from an actual crime. That may be how recently enacted laws are written. But, without case law and particularly a supreme court ruling, it's not clear that accusations that someone assisted someone lying about conspiring to commit a crime is a solid argument in court. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Bitcoin: the cutting edge of begging technology." -- Giraffe.BTC
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
erik777
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 504
Merit: 250
Earn with impressio.io
|
|
February 13, 2014, 05:44:22 AM |
|
If a customer informs a gun shop that they need a buy a gun so they can rob bank, and the gun shop assists the customer in acquiring the gun, the gun shop has committed a crime even if the customer is stopped before they get to the bank and commit their crime.
Robbing a bank at gunpoint isn't a victimless crime, so knowingly assisting the thief in acquiring a gun for the purpose of robbing the bank isn't a victimless crime even if there is no actual bank robbery that occurs.
But what if there is no actual bank? Who's the victim? Robbing a bank at gunpoint isn't a victimless crime, so knowingly assisting the thief in acquiring a gun for the purpose of robbing the bank isn't a victimless crime even if there is no actual bank robbery that occurs.
Is there case law and a supreme court challenge establishing this? When there is a claim that someone assisted a crime, it is usually a real crime that occurred. It is bad enough that we've muddied the waters with conspiracy to commit a crime charges, which I've read some and been convinced that the accused in a few of these cases would never of tried to actually commit the alleged crimes. But, now you're suggesting assisting someone who is conspiring to commit a crime, creating additional degrees of separation from an actual crime. I would think in the case of the bank robbery you'd charge the person assisting the thief with conspiracy to commit bank robbery. But these people aren't being charged with conspiracy to commit credit card theft. That may be how recently enacted laws are written. But, without case law and particularly a supreme court ruling, it's not clear that accusations that someone assisted someone lying about conspiring to commit a crime is a solid argument in court.
The statute is Florida Statutes 896.101. Reading it it's unclear to me how they're going to get a conviction on that. Maybe conspiracy to commit money laundering? I don't know, I'm not a lawyer, and couldn't find any case law on point. Interesting quote from 896.101: "This subsection does not preclude the defense of entrapment." lol |
|
|
|
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
|
|
February 13, 2014, 06:09:49 AM
Last edit: February 13, 2014, 06:27:54 AM by DeathAndTaxes |
|
Yup from a straight reading of the complaint those saying "entrapment" obviously have a definition of "if the cop doesn't tell you he is an undercover cop and in any way tricks you" = entrapment. In the real world it doesn't come within a mile of entrapment. For those thinking it rises to an entrapment defense .... cops can lie to you. If this is the first time that truth has crashed into your reality well it is good to learn it before you are in a court room.
However the flip side is the money laundering charge doesn't even seem to hold water. I am not saying it is a weak case, I am saying the the the basic material fact of the charge aren't represented. I mean the prosecutor has better chance of indicting for the murder of a person who isn't dead. Unless there is more than what is in the complaint, I can't see it even surviving the first motion from the defense. Honestly I don't think the prosecutor could get the grand jury to indict, even if they were half asleep, so that is a plus for the defense.
If the ML charges go away it gets a lot more interesting. Is the state of FL going to go ahead with the unlicensed money transmitter charge on an otherwise legit exchange? If so then the hyperbolic title of the thread is 100% spot on. So honestly I really do hope the ML charges get dismissed because then it just comes down to a black and white case on if two citizens of Florida can exchange dollars for Bitcoins.
|
|
|
|
|
|
anth0ny
|
|
February 13, 2014, 06:22:12 AM
Last edit: February 13, 2014, 12:49:04 PM by anth0ny |
|
If the ML charges go away it gets a lot more interesting. Is the state of FL going to go ahead with the unlicensed money transmitter charge on an otherwise legit exchange? If so then the hyperbolic title of the thread is 100% spot on. So honestly I really do hope the ML charges get dismissed because then it just comes down to a black and white case on if two citizens of Florida can exchange dollars for Bitcoins.
I'd rather the test case for money transmitter charges have more sympathetic defendants. But it'll be interesting nonetheless. |
|
|
|
|
|
hostmaster
|
|
February 13, 2014, 06:24:54 AM |
|
AGREED IT's just a tool what that stupid all these people afraid of... |
|
|
|
|
erik777
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 504
Merit: 250
Earn with impressio.io
|
|
February 13, 2014, 06:49:27 AM |
|
AGREED IT's just a tool what that stupid all these people afraid of... I just described this case that way earlier today, before even reading this thread. I reminded someone that many people demonized the Internet as a place that would enable gambling and child porn. This debate rose to the US congress in the late 90s. Similarly, the VCR was supposed to be a tool for copyright infringement. The result of this case is what helped to raise awareness of our fair use rights, only to be marginalized and regulated via the DMCA later on. The bigger problem, however, is that the money laundering laws created in the 80s to target "drug kingpins" were a time bomb waiting to go off as they gradually ensnared more and more innocent people who have no interest in drugs or profiting from them in any way. Take the $10k limit established back then. Is $10k in the 80s the same as $10k 30 years later? Inflation ensures that more and more people are impacted every year -- until cash and privacy are eliminated for all citizens. Now comes bitcoin. It is getting double wacked as both a new technology, and at a time when the dragnet of the money laundering laws has increased so wide that the % of people being targeted that most of us would consider "good people" is increasing rapidly. In fact, triple wacked because bitcoins leaves out the central banks, which have been the most outspoken opponents of it. Quadruple wacked when you consider how governments have increasing used central banks for political means by printing money to buy votes (the primary cause of the high inflation rate in Argentina). Hopefully these cases raise awareness not only for the benefit of bitcoin, but also to help push back some of our laws so that good people are not ensnared in them. What good is a war on drugs when the end result is a war on people who don't use illegal drugs, people who support the real efforts that arrest real international drug traffickers to stop the drug trades themselves for cocaine, heroin, etc,..., but are people who use currencies, people who buy pizzas, people who pay rent/mortgage. |
|
|
|
|
anth0ny
|
|
February 13, 2014, 01:20:13 PM |
|
If a customer informs a gun shop that they need a buy a gun so they can rob bank, and the gun shop assists the customer in acquiring the gun, the gun shop has committed a crime even if the customer is stopped before they get to the bank and commit their crime.
Robbing a bank at gunpoint isn't a victimless crime, so knowingly assisting the thief in acquiring a gun for the purpose of robbing the bank isn't a victimless crime even if there is no actual bank robbery that occurs.
But what if there is no actual bank? Who's the victim? Robbing a bank at gunpoint isn't a victimless crime, so knowingly assisting the thief in acquiring a gun for the purpose of robbing the bank isn't a victimless crime even if there is no actual bank robbery that occurs.
But what if there is no actual bank? Who's the victim?
|
|
|
|
|
DannyHamilton
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3374
Merit: 4606
|
|
February 13, 2014, 01:35:00 PM |
|
But what if there is no actual bank? Who's the victim?
Before I answer that question, let me ask one of my own. If I publicly threaten to murder someone, and I plan to murder someone, and I intend to murder someone, and that person is unaware of this threat, plan, and intent, is there a victim prior to my actually committing the murder? |
|
|
|
|
|
anth0ny
|
|
February 13, 2014, 02:21:07 PM
Last edit: February 13, 2014, 02:49:49 PM by anth0ny |
|
But what if there is no actual bank? Who's the victim?
Before I answer that question, let me ask one of my own. If I publicly threaten to murder someone, and I plan to murder someone, and I intend to murder someone, and that person is unaware of this threat, plan, and intent, is there a victim prior to my actually committing the murder? Not necessarily. There's an intended victim. There's a planned victim. But nothing in what you said shows that there's an actual victim. That said, given that you made your threat public, maybe one of the members of the public who heard about the threat (say, a family member of the intended victim) could be considered a victim. Now your turn. What if there's no actual bank? Then there isn't even an intended or planned victim, let alone an actual victim. If you disagree, then who's the victim? |
|
|
|
|
erik777
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 504
Merit: 250
Earn with impressio.io
|
|
February 13, 2014, 02:29:37 PM |
|
But what if there is no actual bank? Who's the victim?
Before I answer that question, let me ask one of my own. If I publicly threaten to murder someone, and I plan to murder someone, and I intend to murder someone, and that person is unaware of this threat, plan, and intent, is there a victim prior to my actually committing the murder? How did we leap from trading bitcoins to conspiracy to commit murder? Espinoza is not a murderer or a bank robber. He wasn't trading lethal weapons. He was trading currency, the same thing we use to order a pizza and pay our bills. The only one expressing any illegal intent in his case was the government. And Espinoza showed no interest in stealing credit cards, and quite possibly found their outlandish claims to be obviously ridiculous. The entire accusation against him is that he BELIEVED every word coming from the government's mouth as if it was an indisputable truth and had INTENT to promote their claimed agenda. But, there is no evidence in the affidavit that he did either. It would be entirely different if the undercover agents were a witness to him trying to support credit card theft, KNOWING that the people he was dealing with were really credit card thieves. But, the only FACT in this case as spelled out by the affidavit is that the government is NOT a credit card thief. They government needs to PROVE that he BELIEVED their lies in order to build a case that relies on this premise. |
|
|
|
|
anth0ny
|
|
February 13, 2014, 02:40:20 PM
Last edit: February 13, 2014, 02:59:46 PM by anth0ny |
|
But what if there is no actual bank? Who's the victim?
Before I answer that question, let me ask one of my own. If I publicly threaten to murder someone, and I plan to murder someone, and I intend to murder someone, and that person is unaware of this threat, plan, and intent, is there a victim prior to my actually committing the murder? How did we leap from trading bitcoins to conspiracy to commit murder? Espinoza is not a murderer or a bank robber. He wasn't trading lethal weapons. He was trading currency, the same thing we use to order a pizza and pay our bills. The only one expressing any illegal intent in his case was the government. And Espinoza showed no interest in stealing credit cards, and quite possibly found their outlandish claims to be obviously ridiculous. The entire accusation against him is that he BELIEVED every word coming from the government's mouth as if it was an indisputable truth and had INTENT to promote their claimed agenda. But, there is no evidence in the affidavit that he did either. It isn't alleged, so far as I can tell, that he even had INTENT to help the undercover agent steal the credit card numbers, since the undercover agent claimed that the numbers were already stolen. I guess the argument is that he had the intent to commit money laundering. |
|
|
|
|
erik777
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 504
Merit: 250
Earn with impressio.io
|
|
February 13, 2014, 02:58:35 PM |
|
To KNOW something, it's generally required that your belief be justified AND TRUE.
My point exactly. It's one thing for a undercover to lie to maintain his cover so he can be a WITNESS to a crime. But, it's completely different for the undercover to fabricate an imaginary crime and build the case that the accused believed those fabrications AND acted to promote the crime. If he gave evidence he believed the fabrications, he could still have an entrapment case, because entrapment doesn't mean the accused didn't commit a crime. It means he wouldn't of committed it ordinarily of the government didn't entrap him. But, in this case, he took no action even indicating he believed their lie, let alone took an action to actually promote the purchase of credit card numbers. |
|
|
|
DoctorOz
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
|
|
February 13, 2014, 03:05:51 PM |
|
I am not legal expert, but from a logical point of view, this does not make sense. For instance. If I have a transaction history of my bitcoins. Bought in X and paid y$. Today I sell X for z$, then funds that I receive a fully accounted for. The only crime I could fathom is that the buyer cannot explain where he received his $100.000 from. What if the following happened, if my neighbour sold his car for $100.000 and paid me $100.000 for a piece of paper that has a drawing that i drew on it? Where is the crime? If my neighbour values my piece of paper at $100.000, then who can say anything? What's next, now the law will tell me how I will spend my hard earned cash?  Sounds like some political bullshit. |
|
|
|
|
|
anth0ny
|
|
February 13, 2014, 03:09:36 PM |
|
To KNOW something, it's generally required that your belief be justified AND TRUE.
My point exactly. It's one thing for a undercover to lie to maintain his cover so he can be a WITNESS to a crime. But, it's completely different for the undercover to fabricate an imaginary crime and build the case that the accused believed those fabrications AND acted to promote the crime. Well, this happens all the time. Adult cops pose as underage children, fake drugs are purported to be the real thing... If he gave evidence he believed the fabrications, he could still have an entrapment case, because entrapment doesn't mean the accused didn't commit a crime. It means he wouldn't of committed it ordinarily of the government didn't entrap him. But, in this case, he took no action even indicating he believed their lie, let alone took an action to actually promote the purchase of credit card numbers.
The underlying crime which was attempted/solicited/conspired would have to be money laundering, not credit card theft. Still, I don't see how they'd do it. |
|
|
|
|
|
anth0ny
|
|
February 13, 2014, 03:16:32 PM |
|
I am not legal expert, but from a logical point of view, this does not make sense. For instance. If I have a transaction history of my bitcoins. Bought in X and paid y$. Today I sell X for z$, then funds that I receive a fully accounted for. The only crime I could fathom is that the buyer cannot explain where he received his $100.000 from. What if the following happened, if my neighbour sold his car for $100.000 and paid me $100.000 for a piece of paper that has a drawing that i drew on it? Where is the crime? If my neighbour values my piece of paper at $100.000, then who can say anything? Well, these weren't neighbors. If instead of a single transaction between you and your neighbor, you were in the business of selling cars, then the crime would be running an auto dealership without a license. |
|
|
|
|
DannyHamilton
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3374
Merit: 4606
|
|
February 13, 2014, 04:52:37 PM |
|
Please understand, I don't necessarily disagree with you nor do I necessarily believe that the actions of law enforcement in these two cases are justified. I find the discussion to be interesting and the debate to be mentally stimulating. As such, I'm taking the opposite side of this discussion because "Yeah! What he said!" doesn't allow for much of a conversation, nor does it leave much opportunity for education, or expansion of knowledge. The act of the debate itself helps to draw out possibilities, lines of thought, and deeper understanding that are not possible with simple agreement. That being said: But what if there is no actual bank? Who's the victim?
Before I answer that question, let me ask one of my own. If I publicly threaten to murder someone, and I plan to murder someone, and I intend to murder someone, and that person is unaware of this threat, plan, and intent, is there a victim prior to my actually committing the murder? Not necessarily. There's an intended victim. There's a planned victim. But nothing in what you said shows that there's an actual victim. Interesting. In your view, intent to commit murder, threatening murder, and planning to commit murder are all victimless crimes. As such, until the murder is actually committed and someone's life is actually gone, prosecuting such an individual would be prosecuting someone for a victimless crime? If that really is your viewpoint, then you're right. Given the way you look at the world and interpret the activities around you, the individuals in these cases are being subjected to law enforcement actions for a victimless crime. Looking at the matter from your viewpoint, I'm also unable to see a victim in the actions of the accused individuals in these cases. That said, given that you made your threat public, maybe one of the members of the public who heard about the threat (say, a family member of the intended victim) could be considered a victim.
Now your turn.
What if there's no actual bank?
Ok, if you are willing to consider as a victim a member of the public who heard about the threat, then we're getting close to having something to work with here. It would appear that the members of law enforcement involved in this case are stating that the accused individuals have an intent to commit money laundering, agreed (or threatened) to commit money laundering, and have planned to commit money laundering. I'm not sure that they can be charged with actual money laundering, but the question I'm trying to answer isn't what crimes they've committed, but rather whether those crimes (or rather the actions and statements of the accused) are victimless. Since money laundering is used specifically to assist criminals in their endeavors (in this case the purchasing and selling of stolen credit card information), the planned acts of money laundering have, as you stated, intended victims. If the planned acts of money laundering are not yet committed, but are known about by others, then perhaps a member of the public who hears about the planned act of money laundering (such as the law enforcement officials) can be considered a victim? Actual stolen credit card information may not have been bought or sold, but if the accused has demonstrated a willingness, intent, and plan to commit money laundering, then anyone who is aware of this willingness, intent, and plan is a victim of the threat of money laundering. I understand that I'm reaching a bit here (ok maybe more than a bit). That's mostly because in your worldview intent, planning, and threatening murder is also essentially a victimless crime. I've already admitted that given your worldview, the accused in these cases are also being charged with victimless crimes. My previous paragraph is just the best I can do to shoehorn a "victim" into your particular worldview (given your willingness to accept "the public" as a victim of a threat of murder against an individual). I also recognize that intent to commit money laundering, planning to commit money laundering, and threatening to commit money laundering are neither in the list of charges filed, nor are they likely to be prosecutable crimes (or illegal at all?). My efforts are not to determine whether or not the accused committed any crimes, but rather to determine whether or not the actions of the accused have a "victim". Then there isn't even an intended or planned victim, let alone an actual victim.
If you disagree, then who's the victim?
I've done the best I can to determine if there is any sort of victim at all given your worldview. I may have come up short, but its the best I can do. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in Florida. |
|
|
|
|
DannyHamilton
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3374
Merit: 4606
|
|
February 13, 2014, 05:00:02 PM |
|
But what if there is no actual bank? Who's the victim?
Before I answer that question, let me ask one of my own. If I publicly threaten to murder someone, and I plan to murder someone, and I intend to murder someone, and that person is unaware of this threat, plan, and intent, is there a victim prior to my actually committing the murder? How did we leap from trading bitcoins to conspiracy to commit murder? The question I'm attempting to answer is "Who's the victim?", not "What is the crime?" To determine the answer to the question of "Who's the victim?", I first needed to find out if we both identify victims in the same way. I used an extreme example of intent and threat to commit murder to determine if the person asking "Who's the victim?" would identify a victim in cases where threats and intent exist, but the threatened and intended action has not yet occurred. Having established a particular viewpoint on the matter, I was then able to return to discussion about the actions surrounding these individuals trading of bitcoins. That answer applies only to the particular viewpoint expressed by anth0ny. If someone else would identify some other "victims" in the threat and intent to commit murder, then there would be a some other "victims" in these cases being discussed. |
|
|
|
|
darkmule
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1005
|
|
February 13, 2014, 05:00:40 PM |
|
It will be interesting if the defendant testifies that he can always tell when someone is lying, so he knew the buyer didn't know anyone in Russia. Depending on how they interpret the specific intent requirement in Florida, that might actually be a defense, as silly as it sounds. Of course, the fact-finder would have to believe or at least have reasonable doubt as to that intent. For example, suppose the defendant testified that due to his personal knowledge of the buyer, he knew that the buyer was a milquetoast who really wanted to buy embarrassing, but entirely legal porn and made up this story to seem like a badass. (Incidentally, while this may be a defense against the full monty money laundering charge, there are quite possibly lesser included offenses of money laundering that apply without specific intent.) At that point, no crime there, unless you buy the state's rather contrived theory about unlicensed money transmitting businesses. Incidentally, the latter is the far more worrisome potential consequence of this case, especially if adopted at the federal level, and there is some statutory basis for it. |
|
|
|
|
darkmule
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1005
|
|
February 13, 2014, 05:05:15 PM |
|
The question I'm attempting to answer is "Who's the victim?", not "What is the crime?" Clearly, in this case, there is no specific victim. The crime was imaginary and the victims nonexistent. Similarly, if you tried to hire a hit man to "rub out the guy who ratted on me" and there was no actual rat, there would be no actual victim. However, murder-for-hire is not a victimless crime. It inherently intends to have a victim and where one exists, that victim will be harmed. Similarly, selling stolen credit card numbers is inherently a crime where there are victims, if the crime is completed. I generally interpret the term "victimless crime" to mean "crimes" where inherently, there are no victims. So, for instance, purchasing drugs is a victimless crime. Thinking "bad" thoughts or expressing them is a victimless crime. Any act which does not impair someone else in the exercise or enjoyment of their rights is victimless, and should never be subject to punishment by the state. |
|
|
|
|
|
anth0ny
|
|
February 13, 2014, 05:14:19 PM |
|
Please understand, I don't necessarily disagree with you nor do I necessarily believe that the actions of law enforcement in these two cases are justified.
I didn't think we were talking about whether the actions of law enforcement were justified, but were talking about whether or not the alleged crime was victimless. That said, it doesn't bother me when people disagree with me. But what if there is no actual bank? Who's the victim?
Before I answer that question, let me ask one of my own. If I publicly threaten to murder someone, and I plan to murder someone, and I intend to murder someone, and that person is unaware of this threat, plan, and intent, is there a victim prior to my actually committing the murder? Not necessarily. There's an intended victim. There's a planned victim. But nothing in what you said shows that there's an actual victim. Interesting. In your view, intent to commit murder, threatening murder, and planning to commit murder are all victimless crimes. No. Intent to commit murder and planning to commit murder aren't crimes at all. And threatening to commit murder usually has a victim. As such, until the murder is actually committed and someone's life is actually gone, prosecuting such an individual would be prosecuting someone for a victimless crime?
It could be. Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that. If that really is your viewpoint, then you're right.
Great. Given the way you look at the world and interpret the activities around you, the individuals in these cases are being subjected to law enforcement actions for a victimless crime. Looking at the matter from your viewpoint, I'm also unable to see a victim in the actions of the accused individuals in these cases.
I think there's quite a difference between the intended victim being unharmed and the intended "victim" being nonexistent. Ok, if you are willing to consider as a victim a member of the public who heard about the threat, then we're getting close to having something to work with here. It would appear that the members of law enforcement involved in this case are stating that the accused individuals have an intent to commit money laundering, agreed (or threatened) to commit money laundering, and have planned to commit money laundering. I'm not sure that they can be charged with actual money laundering, but the question I'm trying to answer isn't what crimes they've committed, but rather whether those crimes (or rather the actions and statements of the accused) are victimless. Since money laundering is used specifically to assist criminals in their endeavors (in this case the purchasing and selling of stolen credit card information), the planned acts of money laundering have, as you stated, intended victims. No. The stealing of the credit card has intended victims. The money laundering itself is victimless. I understand that I'm reaching a bit here (ok maybe more than a bit). That's mostly because in your worldview intent, planning, and threatening murder is also essentially a victimless crime.
Intent to murder is not a crime at all. Planning to murder (if only one person is involved in the planning) is not a crime at all. Threatening murder has a victim. Attempted murder might, in some cases, not have a victim. But please don't take that to mean that I feel it shouldn't be a crime. If by "attempted murder" you mean trying to kill someone and failing, that should be a crime. If by "attempted murder" you mean trying to kill something that is not a person and succeeding, that shouldn't be (though in at least some jurisdictions it sometimes is). I've already admitted that given your worldview, the accused in these cases are also being charged with victimless crimes. My previous paragraph is just the best I can do to shoehorn a "victim" into your particular worldview (given your willingness to accept "the public" as a victim of a threat of murder against an individual).
What I said is that there might be a victim if the public is aware of the threat, and I gave an example of a family member. If someone credibly threatens to kill my spouse, I think it's accurate to say that I've been victimized by that person. I also recognize that intent to commit money laundering, planning to commit money laundering, and threatening to commit money laundering are neither in the list of charges filed, nor are they likely to be prosecutable crimes (or illegal at all?). My efforts are not to determine whether or not the accused committed any crimes, but rather to determine whether or not the actions of the accused have a "victim".
And you agree they don't, right? The "victim" is imaginary. Then there isn't even an intended or planned victim, let alone an actual victim.
If you disagree, then who's the victim?
I've done the best I can to determine if there is any sort of victim at all given your worldview. I may have come up short, but its the best I can do. Who's the victim in your worldview? It will be interesting to see how this plays out in Florida.
There's no Florida law against victimless crimes, so whether or not there's a victim is really irrelevant. You agree the money services business charge is a victimless one, right? |
|
|
|
|
|
