Inducement has a specific legal definition in this context that may not align with the dictionary definition (one of the many reasons nobody should represent th

Inducement has a specific legal definition in this context that may not align with the dictionary definition (one of the many reasons nobody should represent themselves). Regardless of opinion here, the US legal system is based on common law, meaning that courts are bound by precedent. The precedent is that the state would have to coerce someone, bribe someone, threaten someone or otherwise compel them to commit a crime they otherwise wouldn't in order to mount this affirmative defense. > In this case, a "simulated drug transactions" proceeds was presented by the Government, thereby bringing all the factors into place for a crime that wouldn't have happened except for the Government having facilitated it. The idea is that the government didn't force you to engage in this activity, you chose to - they merely provided a venue. Therefore you would have chosen to engage in the same way had the government not been that one that afforded you the opportunity. It was your propensity to criminality. Similarly, if the government hands me a gun and asks if I want to shoot someone, then I do, I'm very much still guilty of murder. It's no different in these cases just because the action was more 'white collar.' I would encourage you to check out the comic @papercrane linked: https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=633 https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=633 I'm not a lawyer and I am 100% confident this is not entrapment. > ... yet we have a special caste of people that are hyper specialized in making the determination whether something is conclusively illegal or not. Indeed which is why if I ever start a money services business, I'll be hiring an attorney.