4 ms·
Let's hope the police, prosecutor and judge, hell, even your lawyer understand any of this. Meanwhile in Japan, there was a crazy sentence for a crime of using
by ezoe 4y ago
Let's hope the police, prosecutor and judge, hell, even your lawyer understand any of this.
Meanwhile in Japan, there was a crazy sentence for a crime of using a crypto-currency that has been stolen. Not the real criminal responsible of the theft, but some random idiots who think investing on crypto-currency was a good idea and purchased the token that was a part of stolen token.
I bet these idiots has never run full-node on the computer he owns. He just relies on some SaaS wallet service by somebody else.
I guess ignorance is a crime.
- woodruffw 4y agoIgnorance is not a crime, but it’s also not a defense.
- treesprite82 4y agoNo knowledge/criminal intent relating to the act can be a defense (other than for strict liability crimes like statutory rape), ignorance of the law is not.
- drc500free 4y agoWith some small exceptions for a few white-collar crimes that do require knowing the act was illegal. But that doesn't apply 99% of the time.
- creato 4y agoSounds just like buying a stolen bike, knowingly or not.
- ectopod 4y agoKnowingly is a crime. Unknowingly is not. In England anyway.
- bpodgursky 4y agoIt's more like pulling dirty money out of an ATM.
- verdverm 4y agoBeing ignorant of the law has never been a valid defence
- colinmhayes 4y agoWorked for plenty of people.
- verdverm 4y agoSo I can shoplift and just say I didn't know it was illegal?
- MacsHeadroom 4y agoNo, but you can be gifted a shoplifted item and legally defend yourself by demonstrating that you did not know that it was stollen before being gifted to you. However, the same defense does not protect against confiscation; just criminal liability.
- IanCal 4y agoThis isn't about ignorance of the law though.
- verdverm 4y agoViolating sanctions is breaking the law, isn't it?
- treesprite82 4y agoThe distinction they're drawing is between ignorance of the law (e.g: you take someone's phone because you didn't know stealing was illegal) and lack of knowledge/criminal intent relating to the act you committed (e.g: you take someone's phone because someone sold you a stolen phone and you were unaware). Former is what "ignorance of the law is not a valid defence" applies to. Latter can be valid, and particularly in this case I'd find it hard to imagine that those affected by the dusting attack would be found guilty of violating sanctions.