3 ms·
> I don’t understand the resources that apparently went into tracking down some kid who stole from an illegal marketplace a decade again. 1. I suspect that the
by michaelt 4y ago
> I don’t understand the resources that apparently went into tracking down some kid who stole from an illegal marketplace a decade again.
1. I suspect that the justice system feels that, as a matter of principle, they ought to keep the heat on darknet markets generally. That getting darknet market related arrests in the news has deterrent value, and shows they're doing their job. Obviously, arresting operators or big sellers would be even better - but any darknet market arrests are better than none at all.
2. They recovered $3.3 Billion, so the ROI on agents' time is probably pretty good. American society loves it when police departments are funded with criminals' money, through aggressive traffic ticketing and civil forfeiture! So this is really no different to fining a driver for doing 55 in a 54, except with much less police time used. From a certain perspective, this is one of the most productive uses of resources the department could possibly make.
- nrmitchi 4y ago1. I agree, it’s a bit tangential to call this a “darknet market arrest” instead, since the “darknet market” was the “victim”. 2. People largely hate when cops find someone for doing 55 in a 54, so it’s probably not a great example, but I think supports my point. This isn’t about solving an actual crime, but about optimizing for how much money the justice department is able to collect. I said elsewhere that this would be more reasonable as a tax investigation, but it’s not, and it’s (in my opinion) a pretty bad precedent that investigations should be prioritized by “how much cash can we seize”
- dragonwriter 4y ago> I said elsewhere that this would be more reasonable as a tax investigation It was also a tax investigation, which is why IRS criminal investigatoes were involved, and there clearly were tax violations involved, they just weren’t part of the plea bargain. > it’s (in my opinion) a pretty bad precedent that investigations should be prioritized by “how much cash can we seize” I agree that prioritizing prosecutions that way would be, but Zhong doesn’t seem to have particularly been a prosecutorial priority. OTOH, spending investigative resources to find know forfeitable assets under an existing conviction seems a perfectly sane and responsible use of resources
- lancesells 4y agoWhat parallel universe do you guys live in where there's a 54mph or 54kmh? :)
- furyofantares 4y agoIt's a reference to the famous Jay Z track, 99 problems