3 ms·
>Doubling down on perjury as a legal tactic is unwise. This is Ireland we're talking about. Not the US.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
>Doubling down on perjury as a legal tactic is unwise.
This is Ireland we're talking about. Not the US.
- grawprog 7y agoPoor timing I guess. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/perjury-to-be-made-easier-to-prosecute-under-new-law-1.3928733 https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/perjury-to-be-made-...
- FDSGSG 7y agoThe obvious solution would just be to not say anything at all. For perjury to be on the cards here there'd have to be some next level stupidity involved. Although, claiming that someone else could've done something isn't necessarily untruthful even if you did that thing yourself. Are defendants even sworn in in Ireland? If not, a successful perjury prosecution seems rather unlikely https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2018/112/eng/ver_b/b112b18s.pdf https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2018/112/eng/v... I really can't imagine why the guy running away with the bitcoin would ever be compelled to testify under oath.
- jacques_chester 7y ago> This is Ireland we're talking about. Not the US. Perjury being a crime predates the US. As it so happens, I am Australian.
- FDSGSG 7y agoOk, if this guy was in Australia why would he ever be compelled to testify under oath about this?
- jacques_chester 7y agoThe scenario given was that the defendant would argue that the coins moved due to a vulnerability in bitcoin. That's a positive statement, not a refusal to answer.
- FDSGSG 7y agoYes, and when would a defendant be making statements under oath?
- jacques_chester 7y agoIn the "interesting legal case" that the original scenario envisaged.
- FDSGSG 7y agotestify vs argue I don't think anything in the original comment suggested that they'd be under oath, that's something you came up with.