4 ms·
> Would it make any sense to say the fraudster is beyond German law? Of course not But this is only the case because the US has agreements in place with German
by Reelin 7y ago
> Would it make any sense to say the fraudster is beyond German law? Of course not
But this is only the case because the US has agreements in place with Germany (and the EU more generally I think?). Were the fraudster located in a less "friendly" territory, they might indeed be beyond reach. For example, I don't generally expect Russia to be cooperative in extraditing anyone to the US anytime soon.
As to British Overseas Territories, the Wikipedia page wasn't particularly enlightening as to what legal arrangements might currently be in place. I'll take your word that a relevant framework exists. As such, I do wonder how Telegram is planning to navigate this.
- JumpCrisscross 7y ago> this is only the case because the US has agreements in place with Germany The agreements don’t make the law, they facilitate enforcement. If you sell Ponzi schemes to Germany from Russia, you’ve still broken German law. It will just be difficult to enforce. The U.S. has extensive law-enforcement coöperation agreements with the U.K. BOTs are “under the jurisdiction and sovereignty of the United Kingdom... with the UK retaining responsibility for defence and foreign relations“ [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Overseas_Territories https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Overseas_Territories