4 ms·

This sounds like entrapment. I don't know US laws at all, but I thought the "leave the car doors open and wait for someone to steal it" method of catching bad

This sounds like entrapment. I don't know US laws at all, but I thought the "leave the car doors open and wait for someone to steal it" method of catching bad guys was against the law?

maxerickson 10y ago
Using your example, it would cross the line in the US if you then offered someone money to steal the car. So in this case they probably would have to have been offering the illegal jobs too, not just the fraudulent Visa status.
techonup 10y ago
Doesn't quite work like that. See here [1] for a easy-to-understand explanation. [1] http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=633 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=633
msellout 10y ago
No, seems like it's not entrapment [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bait_car https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bait_car
wnoise 10y ago
Providing opportunities isn't entrapment. Pressuring or convincing someone to commit a crime they wouldn't is. I admit it can be a fine line at times...
ejk314 10y ago
There are only two conditions for entrapment - government inducement of the crime, and the defendant's lack of predisposition to engage in the criminal conduct. [1] And I think this qualifies on both counts. The students were looking to get into the US, but the government pushed this visa mill on them indirectly, via the brokers (who wouldn't have had a dual-accredited fake university to pitch without the government's aid). Had these brokers not reached out to these students, it's unlikely that they would have sought out the same illegal method to enter the country. (This is assuming the brokers reached out the students, and not the other way round). [1] https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-645-entrapment-elements https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-645-en...
- masterzora 10y ago
  The brokers reaching out to the students doesn't mean entrapment, even if we took the case where the brokers actually were government agents. To be entrapment, someone working on the government's behalf would have to do something that would even convince a lawful-minded person to commit the crime.
  - Nacraile 10y ago
    > To be entrapment, someone working on the government's behalf would have to do something that would even convince a lawful-minded person to commit the crime. As a lawful-minded individual, if multiple government websites tell me the institution is accredited, and the head of the institution tells me that work-for-credit is sufficient for student status, I am reasonably convinced that it is legal for me to enroll and apply for a visa. Just how deep into the letter of the law do I have to dig to discover this isn't legal?
    - Lawtonfogle 10y ago
      I think the difference here is not that it was entrapment, but that it wasn't a crime at all. Unless the law says this crime is strict liability, then the prosecutor would need to show that these individuals intended to commit the crime they were committing. For example, say you have a bucket in your yard, I go and stick a sign up saying 'Free bucket to good home.' and someone else comes by and grabs the bucket. Focusing only on the third person's actions for a moment, even though they took a bucket that they had no right to take, and they would likely have to give back, they never committed a crime because they never intended to steal the bucket. They only intended to take a bucket being given away freely. (This is different from 'ignorance of the law isn't an excuse'; that would apply if they did intend to steal a bucket but thought stealing wasn't illegal.) (Now there is still an issue with the government doing something similar with strict liability laws and I'm not sure how that one works out.)
    - masterzora 10y ago
      That is a very different line of reasoning from that to which I was responding. IANAL so I'm not comfortable speculating too far but "it's entrapment if the government asks you to do it" is something I know to be a common misconception. If I were to speculate further, though, I'd say that if someone justifiably believed it was legit because of the government sites, that somebody hadn't committed a crime in the first place and thus couldn't be entrapped.
tikhonj 10y ago
No. In the US, entrapment has a higher bar than that. A sting operation like a bait car is permissible. Entrapment means that law enforcement did something that would cause a normally law-abiding person to commit the crime. Just leaving a car unlocked is not enough; I'm not sure exactly where the line is drawn, but it would need something additional like a police officer convincing you to do it.
jandrese 10y ago
I think the bait car is only entrapment if you have a disguised cop trying to convince people to steal it. "Oh, I need to move this car to my garage but I'm too busy. I'll give you $20 if you drive it to this address. Sorry I lost the key, just touch the two dangling wires together to start it..."
ma2rten 10y ago
Is entrapment even a valid defense in immigration court? Defendants in immigration court don't have the same rights as criminal defendants (e.g. they don't have the right to a lawyer).
caethan 10y ago
Except that as far as the article describes, the students aren't being charged with a crime, the brokers are (and are pretty unambiguously guilty of it). The students are just losing their visas.

This sounds like entrapment. I don't know US laws at all, but I thought the "leave the car doors open and wait for someone to steal it" method of catching bad guys was against the law?

maxerickson 10y ago

Using your example, it would cross the line in the US if you then offered someone money to steal the car. So in this case they probably would have to have been offering the illegal jobs too, not just the fraudulent Visa status.

techonup 10y ago

Doesn't quite work like that. See here [1] for a easy-to-understand explanation. [1] http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=633 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=633

msellout 10y ago

No, seems like it's not entrapment [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bait_car https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bait_car

wnoise 10y ago

Providing opportunities isn't entrapment. Pressuring or convincing someone to commit a crime they wouldn't is. I admit it can be a fine line at times...

ejk314 10y ago

There are only two conditions for entrapment - government inducement of the crime, and the defendant's lack of predisposition to engage in the criminal conduct. [1] And I think this qualifies on both counts. The students were looking to get into the US, but the government pushed this visa mill on them indirectly, via the brokers (who wouldn't have had a dual-accredited fake university to pitch without the government's aid). Had these brokers not reached out to these students, it's unlikely that they would have sought out the same illegal method to enter the country. (This is assuming the brokers reached out the students, and not the other way round). [1] https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-645-entrapment-elements https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-645-en...

masterzora 10y ago
The brokers reaching out to the students doesn't mean entrapment, even if we took the case where the brokers actually were government agents. To be entrapment, someone working on the government's behalf would have to do something that would even convince a lawful-minded person to commit the crime.
- Nacraile 10y ago
  > To be entrapment, someone working on the government's behalf would have to do something that would even convince a lawful-minded person to commit the crime. As a lawful-minded individual, if multiple government websites tell me the institution is accredited, and the head of the institution tells me that work-for-credit is sufficient for student status, I am reasonably convinced that it is legal for me to enroll and apply for a visa. Just how deep into the letter of the law do I have to dig to discover this isn't legal?
  - Lawtonfogle 10y ago
    I think the difference here is not that it was entrapment, but that it wasn't a crime at all. Unless the law says this crime is strict liability, then the prosecutor would need to show that these individuals intended to commit the crime they were committing. For example, say you have a bucket in your yard, I go and stick a sign up saying 'Free bucket to good home.' and someone else comes by and grabs the bucket. Focusing only on the third person's actions for a moment, even though they took a bucket that they had no right to take, and they would likely have to give back, they never committed a crime because they never intended to steal the bucket. They only intended to take a bucket being given away freely. (This is different from 'ignorance of the law isn't an excuse'; that would apply if they did intend to steal a bucket but thought stealing wasn't illegal.) (Now there is still an issue with the government doing something similar with strict liability laws and I'm not sure how that one works out.)
  - masterzora 10y ago
    That is a very different line of reasoning from that to which I was responding. IANAL so I'm not comfortable speculating too far but "it's entrapment if the government asks you to do it" is something I know to be a common misconception. If I were to speculate further, though, I'd say that if someone justifiably believed it was legit because of the government sites, that somebody hadn't committed a crime in the first place and thus couldn't be entrapped.

tikhonj 10y ago

No. In the US, entrapment has a higher bar than that. A sting operation like a bait car is permissible. Entrapment means that law enforcement did something that would cause a normally law-abiding person to commit the crime. Just leaving a car unlocked is not enough; I'm not sure exactly where the line is drawn, but it would need something additional like a police officer convincing you to do it.

jandrese 10y ago

I think the bait car is only entrapment if you have a disguised cop trying to convince people to steal it. "Oh, I need to move this car to my garage but I'm too busy. I'll give you $20 if you drive it to this address. Sorry I lost the key, just touch the two dangling wires together to start it..."

ma2rten 10y ago

Is entrapment even a valid defense in immigration court? Defendants in immigration court don't have the same rights as criminal defendants (e.g. they don't have the right to a lawyer).

caethan 10y ago

Except that as far as the article describes, the students aren't being charged with a crime, the brokers are (and are pretty unambiguously guilty of it). The students are just losing their visas.