5 ms·

(Not legal advice, just my opinion) Not true. It would only be blackmail if he didn't legally owe the money. Threatening to go to the DA is very appropriate.

(Not legal advice, just my opinion) Not true. It would only be blackmail if he didn't legally owe the money. Threatening to go to the DA is very appropriate. In fact, it's what you should do so that he knows how serious it is. I would say something like, "If there's not a cashier's check in my hand by x date, I will file criminal charges with the DA." It would be the polite thing to do, so that he's not blindsided with a criminal record.

chops 15y ago
It would be the polite thing to do, so that he's not blindsided with a criminal record. Politeness is not warranted in this situation. This guy sounds like a defacto asshole and deserves to be in jail.
- badclient 15y ago
  Out of politeness, I told the guy that date x would be the last day I would be available to do any minor fixes or work for him due to continued non-payment. What does he do? Use that against me to argue that the project didn't really finish until the date in my courtesy email and that he's got another few days to pay me and make good on the returned checks. Of course his own arbitrary deadline for when payment is due have long come and gone with no payment. And don't even get me started about the returned checks impact on me financially. My account went from positive ~4k to about -5,900. My checking account is couple weeks from being reported if I don't get in the pos. I'm bouncing back but wanna do everything possible to keep others from going through the same shit. More on that soon as I launch a site warning others of this.
thucydides 15y ago
Not correct. If you threaten to expose a crime unless you are paid money, you have committed blackmail. It is blackmail even if you have a legal right to demand the money. Note that each act separately is fine: you can demand money; you can threaten to report a crime. You just can't make the report conditional on receiving money.
- erydo 15y ago
  > If you threaten to expose a crime unless you are paid money, you have committed blackmail. That might make sense if the crime in question weren't the non-payment of that money. Saying, "If you don't pay what you owe, I'll report you" doesn't sound like it could possibly be blackmail. There are a lot of IANALs here, I'd love to hear an actual lawyer comment on this.
  - thucydides 15y ago
    I'm not quite a lawyer. I represented criminal defendants throughout my third year of law school. I earned my Juris Doctor in May and will hear if I passed the Maryland bar in November.
  - thucydides 15y ago
    "I try to unravel the paradox [of blackmail] and provide a coherent basis for distinguishing legitimate from illegitimate threats. In brief, I argue that the key to the wrongfulness of the blackmail transaction is its triangular structure. The transaction implicitly involves not only the blackmailer and his victim but always a third party as well. This third party may be, for example, the victim's spouse or employer, the authorities or even the public at large. When a blackmailer tries to use his right to release damaging information, he is threatening to tell others. If the blackmail victim pays the blackmailer, it is to avoid the harm that those others would inflict. Thus blackmail is a way that one person requests something in return for suppressing the actual or potential interests of others. To get what he wants, the blackmailer uses leverage that is less his than someone else's. Selling the right to go to the police involves suppressing the state's interests. Selling the right to tell a tort victim who committed the tort involves suppressing the tort victim's interests. And selling the right to inform others of embarrassing (but legal) behavior involves suppressing the interests of those other people." James Lindgren, Unraveling the Paradox of Blackmail, 84 Colum. L. Rev. 670, 672 (1984)
    - erydo 15y ago
      That still doesn't quite answer the question: If the money is paid, there is no crime to begin with. The transfer isn't selling the right to go to the authorities, it's resolving the crime of non-payment in the first place.

chops 15y ago

It would be the polite thing to do, so that he's not blindsided with a criminal record. Politeness is not warranted in this situation. This guy sounds like a defacto asshole and deserves to be in jail.

badclient 15y ago
Out of politeness, I told the guy that date x would be the last day I would be available to do any minor fixes or work for him due to continued non-payment. What does he do? Use that against me to argue that the project didn't really finish until the date in my courtesy email and that he's got another few days to pay me and make good on the returned checks. Of course his own arbitrary deadline for when payment is due have long come and gone with no payment. And don't even get me started about the returned checks impact on me financially. My account went from positive ~4k to about -5,900. My checking account is couple weeks from being reported if I don't get in the pos. I'm bouncing back but wanna do everything possible to keep others from going through the same shit. More on that soon as I launch a site warning others of this.

thucydides 15y ago

Not correct. If you threaten to expose a crime unless you are paid money, you have committed blackmail. It is blackmail even if you have a legal right to demand the money. Note that each act separately is fine: you can demand money; you can threaten to report a crime. You just can't make the report conditional on receiving money.

erydo 15y ago
> If you threaten to expose a crime unless you are paid money, you have committed blackmail. That might make sense if the crime in question weren't the non-payment of that money. Saying, "If you don't pay what you owe, I'll report you" doesn't sound like it could possibly be blackmail. There are a lot of IANALs here, I'd love to hear an actual lawyer comment on this.
- thucydides 15y ago
  I'm not quite a lawyer. I represented criminal defendants throughout my third year of law school. I earned my Juris Doctor in May and will hear if I passed the Maryland bar in November.
- thucydides 15y ago
  "I try to unravel the paradox [of blackmail] and provide a coherent basis for distinguishing legitimate from illegitimate threats. In brief, I argue that the key to the wrongfulness of the blackmail transaction is its triangular structure. The transaction implicitly involves not only the blackmailer and his victim but always a third party as well. This third party may be, for example, the victim's spouse or employer, the authorities or even the public at large. When a blackmailer tries to use his right to release damaging information, he is threatening to tell others. If the blackmail victim pays the blackmailer, it is to avoid the harm that those others would inflict. Thus blackmail is a way that one person requests something in return for suppressing the actual or potential interests of others. To get what he wants, the blackmailer uses leverage that is less his than someone else's. Selling the right to go to the police involves suppressing the state's interests. Selling the right to tell a tort victim who committed the tort involves suppressing the tort victim's interests. And selling the right to inform others of embarrassing (but legal) behavior involves suppressing the interests of those other people." James Lindgren, Unraveling the Paradox of Blackmail, 84 Colum. L. Rev. 670, 672 (1984)
  - erydo 15y ago
    That still doesn't quite answer the question: If the money is paid, there is no crime to begin with. The transfer isn't selling the right to go to the authorities, it's resolving the crime of non-payment in the first place.