> It's not a "loophole", it's simply the lack of any explicit law That's literally the definition of a loophole - something the letter of law fails to account

> It's not a "loophole", it's simply the lack of any explicit law That's literally the definition of a loophole - something the letter of law fails to account for, but the spirit of the law would have intended to cover. I was writing in a pragmatic register, not a legal one. You can't consider the ethical/practical consequences of the law using only formal legal language - there's no legal definition of what constitutes a loophole in the law, nor could there possibly be. > Again, this isn't "abusive behavior". Again, not referring to a legal standard of abuse. If you were arrested and wrongly convicted, had all your assets seized, and then had your conviction vacated but the state refused to return your property, would you feel abused?