7 ms·

> If convicted of mail fraud, the former Microsoft software engineer could face as much as 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. It doesn't mention returning

> If convicted of mail fraud, the former Microsoft software engineer could face as much as 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. It doesn't mention returning what he took... So he steals over 10m and buys a 1.6m house and can only be fined up to $250k? With 20 years in prison, and let's say out in 10 years of good behavior wouldn't that raise his annual income (which is taxed) from $116,000 to north of $1m?

brianwawok 7y ago
He won’t get to keep it
rahimnathwani 7y ago
Fines are punishment. Restitution/compensation is separate.
- pkilgore 7y ago
  This. Also, as an attorney, I view all descriptions of possible sentences with extreme skepticism. A hyperbolic explanation [1] so I don't have to retype something similar: > Federal sentences are calculated using the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The guidelines are a very complex set of rules used to calculate a federal sentence based upon the crime charged, the circumstances of the case, and the criminal record of the defendant. Calculating a very simple sentence is like completing a very simple tax return under, say, 1040-EZ; a complex sentence is like completing a tax return for a troubled entity engaged in questionable tax practices. Or, for you old-school geeks, like creating a Runequest character for a friend who is an argumentative rules-lawyer. From the enactment of the guidelines in the 1980s until United States v. Booker in 2005, the guidelines were binding upon federal judges — they had to follow the guidelines unless there were grounds for a "departure," meaning the rare circumstance not contemplated by the guidelines. Guidelines-application litigation was time-consuming, tedious, and generally despised by trial and appellate judges. In 2005, the Supreme Court decided to construe the guidelines as mere recommendations which federal judges must consider, thus avoiding the Constitutional dilemma of the sentencing judge making findings of fact driving the sentence without a jury's input. Now, federal judges calculate and consider guidelines sentences, but make their own determination, taking into account the factors required by federal statute. Appellate courts review trial judges' sentences for "reasonableness," in which adherence to the guidelines is one factor. Sentences within the guidelines are presumed reasonable. Most federal judges tend to issue sentences close to the guidelines; some impose sentences below, but it's rarer to see one impose a sentence above. [1] excerpted from the much longer and funnier https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentence-eleventy-million-years/ https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentenc...
ovi256 7y ago
If they can find it, the government will seize it, don't worry. They even double dip: they seize both the stolen goods and the money paid for them, using the forfeiture doctrine unique to the US. Then, the payer has to prove he was buying in good faith (which will be a steep hill to climb, given the usual conspiracy between buyer and seller of stolen goods) in a separate lawsuit against the government if he wants the money back.
- candiodari 7y ago
  The worst of it is that money forfeited is NOT returned to the person it was stolen from. This is one of those things that is so obvious everyone thinks that this is what happens but in fact does not happen in many cases. The police may themselves sell the recovered stolen goods instead of returning them. You don't have any recourse. So the only thing you can achieve by reporting a theft is that someone gets subjected to the US justice system (assuming they do anything at all). It is highly unlikely you get anything back. So you shouldn't do it to recover your goods. Furthermore, reporting anything to the police has extra consequences: 1) they will investigate, and may find something wrong with you 2) they may report it to other government organizations which may use it in ways you did not anticipate and really don't want (e.g. child services: your house was broken into and is "not livable") 3) just the association, or that the neighborhood sees police officers near/in your house will spread and may have consequences. There's nothing to gain from using the justice system and everything to lose.
  - ovi256 7y ago
    While these things happen, it's an overly negative view. A citizen reporting a theft has a very low probability of a negative outcome from his interaction with the police. >nothing to gain from using the justice system Insurance may require the theft to be reported before they cover any claims.
    - _jal 7y ago
      > Insurance may require the theft to be reported before they cover any claims Yes, that's the reason to report. Another reason not to, if you don't have insurance: creepy cops being creepy at you. Story time: Walking home with my then-housemate after dinner that involved drinking, we were mugged. Minor violence, lost our wallets. I called the cops. They wanted to come the next day to do an interview, which I declined, pointing out they weren't going to try to find the wallets, so what's the point? At which point cop starts getting weird, first saying they need their statistics for better funding. I still decline, and he says "Well, we'll send someone anyway" and hangs up. Sure enough, a cop shows up the next day. I tell him I don't need his services and he starts pressuring me for a report. At this point, I'm pissed and tell him to leave; he makes vague noises about maybe not responding to this block very quickly in the future; I barely manage not to say something really rude that most likely would have escalated things. My policy now: if I'll probably die anyway, or if it involves enough money that I can't ignore it, I might call the cops. Otherwise I'll take my chances that inviting more shitty people to a shitshow will just turn it worse. FTP.
ABeeSea 7y ago
These are federal charges in a federal court. There is no getting reduced sentences for good behavior in the federal system; that’s only for state courts. If he gets 20 years, he has to serve at least 16 by law.
- ziddoap 7y ago
  I'm not familiar with how your system works, but aren't these two statements contradictory? >There is no getting reduced sentences for good behavior >If he gets 20 years, he has to serve at least 16 by law. I am assuming that the 4 year difference would be applied in the event of... Good behavior?
  - gruez 7y ago
    parole?
    - ziddoap 7y ago
      Which, as far as I know, parole is generally granted on terms of good behavior.
  - celticmusic 7y ago
    it's probably written into law as opposed to being a decision made by a panel/judge (just guessing).
astura 7y ago
No because in addition to the fine, which goes to the government, he'll be ordered to pay restitution to Microsoft for any money they are out as a result of his criminal actions - which would probably be the entire amount of money he stole and their legal fees at the minimum.
- ar_lan 7y ago
  Hopefully they can charge interest as well.
  - astura 7y ago
    On the unpaid balance, yes. https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/fees/post-judgement-interest-rate/18-usca-ss-3612-post-judgment-interest-rates https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/fees/post-judgement-...

brianwawok 7y ago

He won’t get to keep it

rahimnathwani 7y ago

Fines are punishment. Restitution/compensation is separate.

pkilgore 7y ago
This. Also, as an attorney, I view all descriptions of possible sentences with extreme skepticism. A hyperbolic explanation [1] so I don't have to retype something similar: > Federal sentences are calculated using the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The guidelines are a very complex set of rules used to calculate a federal sentence based upon the crime charged, the circumstances of the case, and the criminal record of the defendant. Calculating a very simple sentence is like completing a very simple tax return under, say, 1040-EZ; a complex sentence is like completing a tax return for a troubled entity engaged in questionable tax practices. Or, for you old-school geeks, like creating a Runequest character for a friend who is an argumentative rules-lawyer. From the enactment of the guidelines in the 1980s until United States v. Booker in 2005, the guidelines were binding upon federal judges — they had to follow the guidelines unless there were grounds for a "departure," meaning the rare circumstance not contemplated by the guidelines. Guidelines-application litigation was time-consuming, tedious, and generally despised by trial and appellate judges. In 2005, the Supreme Court decided to construe the guidelines as mere recommendations which federal judges must consider, thus avoiding the Constitutional dilemma of the sentencing judge making findings of fact driving the sentence without a jury's input. Now, federal judges calculate and consider guidelines sentences, but make their own determination, taking into account the factors required by federal statute. Appellate courts review trial judges' sentences for "reasonableness," in which adherence to the guidelines is one factor. Sentences within the guidelines are presumed reasonable. Most federal judges tend to issue sentences close to the guidelines; some impose sentences below, but it's rarer to see one impose a sentence above. [1] excerpted from the much longer and funnier https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentence-eleventy-million-years/ https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentenc...

ovi256 7y ago

If they can find it, the government will seize it, don't worry. They even double dip: they seize both the stolen goods and the money paid for them, using the forfeiture doctrine unique to the US. Then, the payer has to prove he was buying in good faith (which will be a steep hill to climb, given the usual conspiracy between buyer and seller of stolen goods) in a separate lawsuit against the government if he wants the money back.

candiodari 7y ago
The worst of it is that money forfeited is NOT returned to the person it was stolen from. This is one of those things that is so obvious everyone thinks that this is what happens but in fact does not happen in many cases. The police may themselves sell the recovered stolen goods instead of returning them. You don't have any recourse. So the only thing you can achieve by reporting a theft is that someone gets subjected to the US justice system (assuming they do anything at all). It is highly unlikely you get anything back. So you shouldn't do it to recover your goods. Furthermore, reporting anything to the police has extra consequences: 1) they will investigate, and may find something wrong with you 2) they may report it to other government organizations which may use it in ways you did not anticipate and really don't want (e.g. child services: your house was broken into and is "not livable") 3) just the association, or that the neighborhood sees police officers near/in your house will spread and may have consequences. There's nothing to gain from using the justice system and everything to lose.
- ovi256 7y ago
  While these things happen, it's an overly negative view. A citizen reporting a theft has a very low probability of a negative outcome from his interaction with the police. >nothing to gain from using the justice system Insurance may require the theft to be reported before they cover any claims.
  - _jal 7y ago
    > Insurance may require the theft to be reported before they cover any claims Yes, that's the reason to report. Another reason not to, if you don't have insurance: creepy cops being creepy at you. Story time: Walking home with my then-housemate after dinner that involved drinking, we were mugged. Minor violence, lost our wallets. I called the cops. They wanted to come the next day to do an interview, which I declined, pointing out they weren't going to try to find the wallets, so what's the point? At which point cop starts getting weird, first saying they need their statistics for better funding. I still decline, and he says "Well, we'll send someone anyway" and hangs up. Sure enough, a cop shows up the next day. I tell him I don't need his services and he starts pressuring me for a report. At this point, I'm pissed and tell him to leave; he makes vague noises about maybe not responding to this block very quickly in the future; I barely manage not to say something really rude that most likely would have escalated things. My policy now: if I'll probably die anyway, or if it involves enough money that I can't ignore it, I might call the cops. Otherwise I'll take my chances that inviting more shitty people to a shitshow will just turn it worse. FTP.

ABeeSea 7y ago

These are federal charges in a federal court. There is no getting reduced sentences for good behavior in the federal system; that’s only for state courts. If he gets 20 years, he has to serve at least 16 by law.

ziddoap 7y ago
I'm not familiar with how your system works, but aren't these two statements contradictory? >There is no getting reduced sentences for good behavior >If he gets 20 years, he has to serve at least 16 by law. I am assuming that the 4 year difference would be applied in the event of... Good behavior?
- gruez 7y ago
  parole?
  - ziddoap 7y ago
    Which, as far as I know, parole is generally granted on terms of good behavior.
- celticmusic 7y ago
  it's probably written into law as opposed to being a decision made by a panel/judge (just guessing).

astura 7y ago

No because in addition to the fine, which goes to the government, he'll be ordered to pay restitution to Microsoft for any money they are out as a result of his criminal actions - which would probably be the entire amount of money he stole and their legal fees at the minimum.

ar_lan 7y ago
Hopefully they can charge interest as well.
- astura 7y ago
  On the unpaid balance, yes. https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/fees/post-judgement-interest-rate/18-usca-ss-3612-post-judgment-interest-rates https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/fees/post-judgement-...