6 ms·
The irony of the Russian government citing legal protections while at the same time breaking international law
by olliej 5y ago
The irony of the Russian government citing legal protections while at the same time breaking international law
- mc32 5y agoIt’s self serving, but also the correct course of action under the law. If someone robs a bank the bank can’t unilaterally confiscate their money if they had an account with the bank.
- blibble 5y agothey could confiscate the amount you "withdrew"!
- mc32 5y agoThat decision would have to rendered by a judge. The bank can’t just “take the money back.”
- davedx 5y ago> If someone robs a bank the bank can’t unilaterally confiscate their money if they had an account with the bank. Are you sure this is true, or are you just making it up?
- BitwiseFool 5y agoI think the key is "unilaterally confiscate". In the real world I'm sure a court would rule in either a criminal or civil suit that the bank is entitled to money from the bank robber as restitution. In which case, the judge would probably allow the funds in that account to be confiscated.
- davedx 5y agoAre you sure about that, or are you just making it up? It sounds snarky but it's a really serious question. Are banks definitely obligated to continue to operate the accounts of someone who has committed a crime against them? Are they not allowed to block the account pending legal process?
- djrogers 5y agoConfiscating money from an account and refusing to serve a customer are two completely different things, I don’t think conflating them is helping your case at all.
- davedx 5y agoSure, I get that. So far this thread is devoid of any factual evidence of what banks can and cannot do with your money, so I give up. Hopefully the posters will consider backing up claims with citations in the future
- BitwiseFool 5y ago>"Hopefully the posters will consider backing up claims with citations in the future" >"It sounds snarky but it's a really serious question. Are banks definitely obligated to continue to operate the accounts of someone who has committed a crime against them? Are they not allowed to block the account pending legal process?" You're essentially doing the same thing by asserting that banks do have the right to seize account holders' funds and then expecting evidence to the contrary. There is a big difference between providing service - and suspending it for whatever reasons they stipulate - and literally just confiscating the account holder's money. I'm certain US Banking laws prohibit banks from doing this. I don't have a citation for you, but you can go digging if you need one. But here's a related concept that sheds some light on my stance. There are all sorts of unclaimed and lost property laws across the US where people have left money in bank accounts that have lapsed. Those people are still entitled to withdraw their money. The bank does not have the right to just take it. Even after a few decades, people can still claim the account funds. If no claim is ever made, I believe that money goes to the government's general fund - depending on the state.
- cinntaile 5y agoThis analogy isn't very helpful imo. You're trying to take over the bank indefinitely, not rob it once. Money is too different from news.
- 323 5y agoBut the bank can freeze the account until a court makes a decision. Banks have a wide range of reasons they can freeze an account for.
- barbazoo 5y agoI'm not saying you're wrong but I'm wondering. What actual law, that they recognize, are they breaking? They don't recognize the ICC, they didn't appear at the ICJ, what's the legal recourse here? Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter says "All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State" but is that enforceable?
- javajosh 5y agoYou quoted the law they are breaking, then you moved the goal-post to include enforcability. That is dishonest and wrong, and I think you should delete your comment.
- barbazoo 5y agoWhere is that law enforced is all I'm asking.
- adgjlsfhk1 5y agohere. international laws are enforced by the actions of other governments.
- Ekaros 5y agoClearly it is not enforced, which tells everything about UN...
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y agoI'm not sure what distinction you're trying to draw here. Obviously the Russians do not recognize any law that would prevent them from invading Ukraine. If they did, they would not be invading Ukraine. The invasion is illegal whether or not they recognize the laws that render it illegal. With respect to the UN charter, it's enforceable in the sense that any international regulation is: if you care enough you can get your guns and shoot the other guy if he doesn't follow the regulation. But otherwise, no.
- bigcat123 5y ago