5 ms·

I always wonder how this is legal in the U.S.A? Creating a fake bank in another country sounds like committing fraud in another country. At worst it can be they

I always wonder how this is legal in the U.S.A? Creating a fake bank in another country sounds like committing fraud in another country. At worst it can be they would be charged with money laundering themselves. What is the line of what is acceptable at entrapment in the United States? What stops any agency from creating permanent fake banks for example? I am glad drug lords get busted. I hate them, but I think if there is no line, then we do not need any kind of law. Just declare drug traffickers as not human and exterminate them. I do not think the outcome would be good.

dkersten 5y ago
That’s why they were approached to do sons things but not others, I guess. I assume that means there was some kind of oversight. Also it’s not entrapment if the criminals are soliciting them.
wil421 5y ago
If the government setup their own Silk Road and busted a bunch of drug dealers it wouldn’t be any different than starting a bank. The first informant said I have drug traffickers asking for banking services. They setup what they were already seeking. Most likely a few governments and courts in multiple countries were already OK with it by the end.
- nomoreplease 5y ago
  > If the government setup their own Silk Road and busted a bunch of drug dealers it wouldn’t be any different than starting a bank. Silk road was e-commerce. The laws & regulations of e-commerce and banking are very different, so yes they would different. Doubly so as it's in two nations. Thirdly so, because now international laws and regulations apply
- vmception 5y ago
  Yeah, just a heads up that darknet commerce goes much darker after every enforcement action. More of it switches to Monero despite being less convenient, debilitating tracing capabilities. It accelerated need for completion of Monero multisignature capabilities, allowing the custody of funds to remain with the buyer and seller, instead of requiring the exchange as an escrow provider which is where many of the funds are seized when the government finds a server and takes it down. Buyers and sellers do their own encryption handshakes based on certain software protocols. Instead of all messages stored on the marketplace server. And they avoid certain apps like Wickr. The effort to take down a marketplace increases while the yield decreases. Classic war of attrition. Everyone already knows the best practices, they are just too lazy to implement them until there is evidence that it’s necessary and not just paranoia.
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    Of course, but these patterns are true of most businesses (and indeed much human behavior). Companies have policies planned exceeding implementation because the cost isn't justified (until it is). ... and "enforcing the law incentivizes criminals to spend more on not getting caught" isn't really an argument for not enforcing the law. Indeed, from the point of view of law enforcement, it's short-term win-win... Every resource spent on being harder to catch is a resource not spent on the actual harmful criminal activity.
    - vmception 5y ago
      These are not hard best practices.
singlow 5y ago
Were the bank activities themselves illegal? It would only be entrapment if they were soliciting the illegal activity. It sounds like they were just soliciting banking services in a way that was attractive to illegal actors. Even if the banking services themselves were not legal, it would seem like entrapment if they used that to charge them with banking crimes. If NYPD operated a Limousine service in hopes that criminals would discuss their crimes while being overheard by an undercover officer, it would not be entrapment.
- vmception 5y ago
  The bank activities were illegal and non compliant. The OCC was about to cut them out of the entire banking network for poor reporting, meaning no OCC-licensed banks could take or send wires to them or hold accounts in their name. It would have shut off all trade for this bank without knowing what they’re doing or alleging any crime, yet. This is how the US enforces its will worldwide. The Treasury has a similar way to do that, without the OFAC list. They did it in 2018 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2018/02/28/why-the-u-s-treasury-killed-a-latvian-bank/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/francescop... Back to the OCC, the outcome of the audit would have solidified criminal charges against the bank directors, but then they backed off with the “this is a government operation” excuse. Other reasons they would back off being any other kind of leverage, which small banks do not have.
  - ptsneves 5y ago
    Exactly. What they were doing was not legal and an audit ruled so. But yeah, ends justify the means
- 542458 5y ago
  “ It would only be entrapment if they were soliciting the illegal activity.” I’d like to note that this isn’t how entrapment works in the US (or many other places). If I’m an investigator, it is not entrapment for me to go to government employees and say “Hey, I’ll give you $100 in exchange for state secrets. You in?”. Covertly soliciting illegal activity to try to catch criminals is not entrapment. It only rises to the level of entrapment when it is something that would cause a “normally law-abiding person” to break the law, or that the defendant would otherwise have had no criminal intent - for example, “Give me state secrets or I’ll kill your wife” would be entrapment.
Cthulhu_ 5y ago
It's legal because the law doesn't explicitly forbid it, I guess? Legality is a very flexible thing. Morality is another, but not necessarily the same. Anyway, generally speaking, law enforcement is granted things that citizens do not, e.g. visibly wearing weapons, owning and transporting narcotics, etc. But those things are obvious. Your last bit is very totalitarian, and I would have hoped we had intellectually grown beyond that.
- gjvnq 5y ago
  Interestingly, the principal of legality in Brazil has two different meanings: 1. For regular people, it mean that they can do whatever the law doesn't forbid. 2. For public officials, it means they can only do what the law allows. Source: https://www.migalhas.com.br/amp/depeso/302660/principio-da-legalidade--o-escudo-do-cidadao https://www.migalhas.com.br/amp/depeso/302660/principio-da-l...
- suifbwish 5y ago
  Morality is totally flexible too, all you need to do to justify your atrocity is to make it help kids in some small way
spoonjim 5y ago
In the US, “entrapment” is fairly narrow and covers only those situations where the police actually directly tell you to commit the crime.

dkersten 5y ago

That’s why they were approached to do sons things but not others, I guess. I assume that means there was some kind of oversight. Also it’s not entrapment if the criminals are soliciting them.

wil421 5y ago

If the government setup their own Silk Road and busted a bunch of drug dealers it wouldn’t be any different than starting a bank. The first informant said I have drug traffickers asking for banking services. They setup what they were already seeking. Most likely a few governments and courts in multiple countries were already OK with it by the end.

nomoreplease 5y ago
> If the government setup their own Silk Road and busted a bunch of drug dealers it wouldn’t be any different than starting a bank. Silk road was e-commerce. The laws & regulations of e-commerce and banking are very different, so yes they would different. Doubly so as it's in two nations. Thirdly so, because now international laws and regulations apply
vmception 5y ago
Yeah, just a heads up that darknet commerce goes much darker after every enforcement action. More of it switches to Monero despite being less convenient, debilitating tracing capabilities. It accelerated need for completion of Monero multisignature capabilities, allowing the custody of funds to remain with the buyer and seller, instead of requiring the exchange as an escrow provider which is where many of the funds are seized when the government finds a server and takes it down. Buyers and sellers do their own encryption handshakes based on certain software protocols. Instead of all messages stored on the marketplace server. And they avoid certain apps like Wickr. The effort to take down a marketplace increases while the yield decreases. Classic war of attrition. Everyone already knows the best practices, they are just too lazy to implement them until there is evidence that it’s necessary and not just paranoia.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  Of course, but these patterns are true of most businesses (and indeed much human behavior). Companies have policies planned exceeding implementation because the cost isn't justified (until it is). ... and "enforcing the law incentivizes criminals to spend more on not getting caught" isn't really an argument for not enforcing the law. Indeed, from the point of view of law enforcement, it's short-term win-win... Every resource spent on being harder to catch is a resource not spent on the actual harmful criminal activity.
  - vmception 5y ago
    These are not hard best practices.

singlow 5y ago

Were the bank activities themselves illegal? It would only be entrapment if they were soliciting the illegal activity. It sounds like they were just soliciting banking services in a way that was attractive to illegal actors. Even if the banking services themselves were not legal, it would seem like entrapment if they used that to charge them with banking crimes. If NYPD operated a Limousine service in hopes that criminals would discuss their crimes while being overheard by an undercover officer, it would not be entrapment.

vmception 5y ago
The bank activities were illegal and non compliant. The OCC was about to cut them out of the entire banking network for poor reporting, meaning no OCC-licensed banks could take or send wires to them or hold accounts in their name. It would have shut off all trade for this bank without knowing what they’re doing or alleging any crime, yet. This is how the US enforces its will worldwide. The Treasury has a similar way to do that, without the OFAC list. They did it in 2018 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2018/02/28/why-the-u-s-treasury-killed-a-latvian-bank/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/francescop... Back to the OCC, the outcome of the audit would have solidified criminal charges against the bank directors, but then they backed off with the “this is a government operation” excuse. Other reasons they would back off being any other kind of leverage, which small banks do not have.
- ptsneves 5y ago
  Exactly. What they were doing was not legal and an audit ruled so. But yeah, ends justify the means
542458 5y ago
“ It would only be entrapment if they were soliciting the illegal activity.” I’d like to note that this isn’t how entrapment works in the US (or many other places). If I’m an investigator, it is not entrapment for me to go to government employees and say “Hey, I’ll give you $100 in exchange for state secrets. You in?”. Covertly soliciting illegal activity to try to catch criminals is not entrapment. It only rises to the level of entrapment when it is something that would cause a “normally law-abiding person” to break the law, or that the defendant would otherwise have had no criminal intent - for example, “Give me state secrets or I’ll kill your wife” would be entrapment.

Cthulhu_ 5y ago

It's legal because the law doesn't explicitly forbid it, I guess? Legality is a very flexible thing. Morality is another, but not necessarily the same. Anyway, generally speaking, law enforcement is granted things that citizens do not, e.g. visibly wearing weapons, owning and transporting narcotics, etc. But those things are obvious. Your last bit is very totalitarian, and I would have hoped we had intellectually grown beyond that.

gjvnq 5y ago
Interestingly, the principal of legality in Brazil has two different meanings: 1. For regular people, it mean that they can do whatever the law doesn't forbid. 2. For public officials, it means they can only do what the law allows. Source: https://www.migalhas.com.br/amp/depeso/302660/principio-da-legalidade--o-escudo-do-cidadao https://www.migalhas.com.br/amp/depeso/302660/principio-da-l...
suifbwish 5y ago
Morality is totally flexible too, all you need to do to justify your atrocity is to make it help kids in some small way

spoonjim 5y ago

In the US, “entrapment” is fairly narrow and covers only those situations where the police actually directly tell you to commit the crime.