3 ms·
This sort of reasoning is why we have judges, though. If the law isn't capable of preventing something that requires a rube-goldberg machine of trades and posi
by eutropia 7y ago
This sort of reasoning is why we have judges, though. If the law isn't capable of preventing something that requires a rube-goldberg machine of trades and positions, then a judge using common sense ought to be able.
It's pretty clear that one tax refund should be claimed one time, and suggesting the contrary (that claiming it twice is OK, e.g. that cum-ex is fine) is mental gymnastics to justify fraud/theft.
If someone is ok with stealing from the government (aka, your fellow taxpayers) then they should be willing to accept the consequences of being caught.
- guitarbill 7y agoTotally agree. It's useful to bear in mind European legal systems are different, and more spirit of the law. It's hard to imagine these highly knowledgable people didn't know what they were doing, and the trial will try to show this. German culture also doesn't encourage or reward rule breaking. Famously, you don't jaywalk. (There are downsides to this, see Tesla vs German car industry.) This doesn't bode well for anybody involved with Cum-Ex deals.
- lacker 7y agoA principle like “one tax refund should be claimed one time” is not clear at all. There are hundreds of different rules for getting refunds on your taxes and many of them can be used multiple times.
- jki275 7y agoJudges are supposed to follow the law. What you are describing is judicial activism, which is not the function of the judiciary. The laws should be written correctly, if they are not they need to be fixed -- not enforced differently by judicial fiat.
- LorenPechtel 7y agoA judge is capable of saying the law is improper, you're not guilty, but a judge isn't capable of criminalizing conduct which the law doesn't make criminal, no matter how obvious it is that they did something wrong. For example, a drug dealer who walked because the state law misspelled the drug. A one character error but it was a perfectly valid chemical name, just not the one they intended to make illegal.