3 ms·

I don't have any real wish to defend this guy since he likely did some really boneheaded things, but "advise them to evade sanctions" could easily just mean "ex

by drcode 7y ago

I don't have any real wish to defend this guy since he likely did some really boneheaded things, but "advise them to evade sanctions" could easily just mean "explained to them how to install a crypto wallet on a computer."

dmix 7y ago
His best defence will be he didn't specifically explain how to evade sanctions. But the government can make "evading sanctions" any off-mainstream network finance stuff. It's easy to twist this stuff in a court room. But of course any sort of technology transfer which would help them in their effort, even indirectly but still very obviously possible to any rational person, which the courts very much take into account (in this case an expert in the field) could fall into breaching embargos. In this case it's like selling a terrorist group's local community police force non-military low-power handguns, possibly believing they aren't practical for a military effort. But you're still giving a terrorist group firearms which could none-the-less be useful for their overarching cause. I highly doubt he practically helped them hide any significant amount of money. Billions aren't flowing through blockchains into their pockets without notice. But the whole idea of sanctions is to make everything, even small-time indirect help off-limits... even banks doing business with legitimate NK businesses.
wpietri 7y ago
Which any reasonable person could have predicted would be used by the North Korean government to evade sanctions. I get why a defendant might say, "Yes, your honor, he did say he wanted to kill his wife and then asked to borrow my gun. And yes, I did then give him my gun. But there's no way I could have foreseen him using my gun to kill her." But I don't think we're under any obligation to take that line of argument seriously.
lawn 7y ago
Wouldn't it be pretty different if he travelled to North Korea to help the people living there, maybe even to help them against the North Korean government. Instead of actually helping the North Korean government itself?
PeterisP 7y ago
Why the "but" ? If you explain to someone how to install a crypto wallet on a computer knowing that this installation will help that person do tax fraud, then you're an accomplice to tax fraud; and if you explain to someone how to install a crypto wallet on a computer knowing that this will help DPRK evade santions, well, that's a crime on its own. Telling others how to do simple things (that they could find on the internet on their own) and providing trivial, simple help may be a crime depending on the intent. There's no requirement to provide some unique, significant, irreplaceable insight or service, knowingly providing any help whatsoever is sufficient. Helping a buddy wash his car is a simple, nice thing to do; but helping a buddy wash blood off of his car before the police gets to it is a crime.
- drcode 7y ago
  I'm not making any legal claims about his situation, I'm just pointing out that the language being used may be intentionally misleading.

by drcode 7y ago

dmix 7y ago

His best defence will be he didn't specifically explain how to evade sanctions. But the government can make "evading sanctions" any off-mainstream network finance stuff. It's easy to twist this stuff in a court room. But of course any sort of technology transfer which would help them in their effort, even indirectly but still very obviously possible to any rational person, which the courts very much take into account (in this case an expert in the field) could fall into breaching embargos. In this case it's like selling a terrorist group's local community police force non-military low-power handguns, possibly believing they aren't practical for a military effort. But you're still giving a terrorist group firearms which could none-the-less be useful for their overarching cause. I highly doubt he practically helped them hide any significant amount of money. Billions aren't flowing through blockchains into their pockets without notice. But the whole idea of sanctions is to make everything, even small-time indirect help off-limits... even banks doing business with legitimate NK businesses.

wpietri 7y ago

Which any reasonable person could have predicted would be used by the North Korean government to evade sanctions. I get why a defendant might say, "Yes, your honor, he did say he wanted to kill his wife and then asked to borrow my gun. And yes, I did then give him my gun. But there's no way I could have foreseen him using my gun to kill her." But I don't think we're under any obligation to take that line of argument seriously.

lawn 7y ago

Wouldn't it be pretty different if he travelled to North Korea to help the people living there, maybe even to help them against the North Korean government. Instead of actually helping the North Korean government itself?

PeterisP 7y ago

Why the "but" ? If you explain to someone how to install a crypto wallet on a computer knowing that this installation will help that person do tax fraud, then you're an accomplice to tax fraud; and if you explain to someone how to install a crypto wallet on a computer knowing that this will help DPRK evade santions, well, that's a crime on its own. Telling others how to do simple things (that they could find on the internet on their own) and providing trivial, simple help may be a crime depending on the intent. There's no requirement to provide some unique, significant, irreplaceable insight or service, knowingly providing any help whatsoever is sufficient. Helping a buddy wash his car is a simple, nice thing to do; but helping a buddy wash blood off of his car before the police gets to it is a crime.

drcode 7y ago
I'm not making any legal claims about his situation, I'm just pointing out that the language being used may be intentionally misleading.