3 ms·

> One interesting thing a lawyer pointed out to me is that a lawyer has a duty to ensure that the money used to pay them wasn't from the proceeds of a crime. I

> One interesting thing a lawyer pointed out to me is that a lawyer has a duty to ensure that the money used to pay them wasn't from the proceeds of a crime. If that's true, it seems a bit ridiculous. SBF is pleading not guilty. Are his lawyers supposed to do their own little investigation to figure out whether their client is actually guilty?

watwut 4y ago
> Are his lawyers supposed to do their own little investigation to figure out whether their client is actually guilty? Actually yes, they are supposed to do that. Not because of money, but as they are preparing the defense.
- olalonde 4y ago
  That's besides the point though. Consider the legal principle of "innocent until proven guilty" - a fundamental pillar of the justice system. It is not the job of a lawyer to determine whether a defendant is guilty or innocent; they are only responsible for presenting evidence and arguments to support their client's case. Ultimately, it is the judge or jury who must decide whether to convict or acquit. The whole process is designed to determine guilt. Requiring a lawyer to know whether their client is guilty in advance amounts to asking them to predict the outcome of that process, to foresee the future. PS: I am not trying to defend SBF here and I hope that that any money linked to Alameda/FTX, including the money he sent to friends and family, is clawed back. But that's a separate issue.
  - twelve40 4y ago
    the issue might be not the lawyers getting into trouble necessarily but for those fees to be confiscated. Why would you as a lawyer sign up to do all this work when there is a chance your fees will evaporate?
    - olalonde 4y ago
      Indeed. If that's what OP meant, it makes a lot more sense.
  - freejazz 4y ago
    >Consider the legal principle of "innocent until proven guilty" - a fundamental pillar of the justice system. Let's not put the cart before the horse. It's the law firms obligations to make sure they aren't participating in a crime, it has nothing to do with assuming someone's guilt.
    - olalonde 4y ago
      So tell me: if the lawyers get paid by SBF, are they participating in a crime? Doesn't the answer depend on whether SBF is guilty or not?
      - JohnFen 4y ago
        If they're knowingly being paid from the proceeds of a crime then yes, they're participating in the crime.
        olalonde 4y ago
        That's different from "has a duty to ensure that the money used to pay them wasn't from the proceeds of a crime" though. If their client claims they're innocent, would they be clear because they don't know that their client is guilty?
        freejazz 4y ago
        No, because "knowingly" isn't an element.
      - freejazz 4y ago
        If he's convicted, yeah. Based on the facts, they are getting paid by money he stole himself and directed to his family.
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    > Consider the legal principle of "innocent until proven guilty" - a fundamental pillar of the justice system. It's "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law". Not necessarily in your lawyer's office. > Requiring a lawyer to know whether their client is guilty in advance amounts to asking them to predict the outcome of that process, to foresee the future. No, that's a different thing. Requiring a lawyer to know the facts is not requiring the lawyer to know how the court will rule in the case.
    - olalonde 4y ago
      They can form an opinion on whether their client is guilty. But they can't know whether they are correct until the verdict.
      - JohnFen 4y ago
        Well, sure they can, unless you mean "guilty" in the sense of a court finding them guilty rather than in the sense that they actually committed the crime.
chollida1 4y ago
Well as I had it explained to me. Run the following thought experiment. You are a lawyer. Your client is accused of robbing a bank. The bank has the serial numbers of the bills taken. Your client pays you in cash and the serial numbers match the stolen ones. if you agree that you are being paid by the proceeds of a crime, then congrats you agree with the law and now all you are figuring out is where the line is. Turns out its somewhere between a forensic audit of your client and 100% certainty that you're being paid with stolen funds. The government or prosecution claiming the funds you're being paid with are from the proceeds of crime is well within the ethical and legal bounds that lawyers are held to. Like many issues when it comes to professionals, there is often a burden on the professional to make sure they are acting ethically. Engineers can't build a building to a clients spec if it would be dangerous. Doctors have a duty of care to not harm a patient even if the patient wants to be harmed and lawyers have a duty of care to know the origins of the funds paying them. That's one of the burdens of being a professional Courts are more than happy to adjudicate if there is a gray area. Also if that doesn't convince you then remember, people can be forced to hand back assets that were stolen even if the owner had no way of knowing ti was stolen. The lawyers don't want to spend all that time defending SBF and be paid with stolen funds, just to have the courts come and tell them to pay back the money as it never belonged to SBF at all. It's in their own best interests to know and vet where the money came from.
SilasX 4y ago
In the sense of whether their client has committed the underlying acts they are accused of, yes, this is something a lawyer would definitely want to know, and try to find out, as it effects what legal defenses can actually work vs. are likely to be swiftly rebutted. (I realize there a much broader claims being made in this thread, like about where the payment money is bad and what obligations that prompts. I'm not attempting to address issues such as those, just the narrower topic above.)
freejazz 4y ago
Sorry, do you think ignorance is an excuse for a crime? I don't believe there is an intent requirement, so their mental state at the time of receiving the money is of no consequence.
- olalonde 4y ago
  Yes, it ought to be. Otherwise, you would be taking a big gamble anytime you accepted money from strangers. It would be quite impractical. Also, it goes beyond mere ignorance, it's unknowable. SBF's lawyers will find out whether he is guilty on the day that the verdict is pronounced.
  - freejazz 4y ago
    >Yes, it ought to be. Lol, since when? Oh, your honor, I didn't know murder was BAD! > Otherwise, you would be taking a big gamble anytime you accepted money from strangers. Really? Hasn't been an issue for me at all. Are you sure it's that big of a gamble? Maybe you should think about the kind of people you are accepting money from? > It would be quite impractical. As I said, hasn't been a problem for me. And I'm an attorney too! I get paid! > Also, it goes beyond mere ignorance, it's unknowable. SBF's lawyers will find out whether he is guilty on the day that the verdict is pronounced. This is literally the opposite of what you described. They are lawyers with expertise in this exact kind of crime and they are well aware of the risk presented by taking money from him. They know he stole money. They know he stole money and saved it for himself.
    - olalonde 4y ago
      I was not talking about murder, I was talking about receiving money. It has to be the least enforced law ever... Because the chances of breaking that law as a phone company, or as a taxi driver are close to 100%. It's a bit sad that you are an attorney and don't seem to believe in due process. If his lawyers "know" that he is guilty, I hope for his sake that he finds lawyers that don't "know" it, given that he is pleading not guilty.
      - 4y ago
JohnFen 4y ago
> Are his lawyers supposed to do their own little investigation to figure out whether their client is actually guilty? Umm, yes? Not because of the money thing, but in order to do their job properly. I'd think that if they were doing their job properly, it would be pretty clear pretty quickly whether or not their client is guilty. And whether or not their client is guilty is important for them to know, because it will definitely affect how they proceed with defending their client.

watwut 4y ago

> Are his lawyers supposed to do their own little investigation to figure out whether their client is actually guilty? Actually yes, they are supposed to do that. Not because of money, but as they are preparing the defense.

olalonde 4y ago
That's besides the point though. Consider the legal principle of "innocent until proven guilty" - a fundamental pillar of the justice system. It is not the job of a lawyer to determine whether a defendant is guilty or innocent; they are only responsible for presenting evidence and arguments to support their client's case. Ultimately, it is the judge or jury who must decide whether to convict or acquit. The whole process is designed to determine guilt. Requiring a lawyer to know whether their client is guilty in advance amounts to asking them to predict the outcome of that process, to foresee the future. PS: I am not trying to defend SBF here and I hope that that any money linked to Alameda/FTX, including the money he sent to friends and family, is clawed back. But that's a separate issue.
- twelve40 4y ago
  the issue might be not the lawyers getting into trouble necessarily but for those fees to be confiscated. Why would you as a lawyer sign up to do all this work when there is a chance your fees will evaporate?
  - olalonde 4y ago
    Indeed. If that's what OP meant, it makes a lot more sense.
- freejazz 4y ago
  >Consider the legal principle of "innocent until proven guilty" - a fundamental pillar of the justice system. Let's not put the cart before the horse. It's the law firms obligations to make sure they aren't participating in a crime, it has nothing to do with assuming someone's guilt.
  - olalonde 4y ago
    So tell me: if the lawyers get paid by SBF, are they participating in a crime? Doesn't the answer depend on whether SBF is guilty or not?
    - JohnFen 4y ago
      If they're knowingly being paid from the proceeds of a crime then yes, they're participating in the crime.
      - olalonde 4y ago
        That's different from "has a duty to ensure that the money used to pay them wasn't from the proceeds of a crime" though. If their client claims they're innocent, would they be clear because they don't know that their client is guilty?
        freejazz 4y ago
        No, because "knowingly" isn't an element.
    - freejazz 4y ago
      If he's convicted, yeah. Based on the facts, they are getting paid by money he stole himself and directed to his family.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  > Consider the legal principle of "innocent until proven guilty" - a fundamental pillar of the justice system. It's "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law". Not necessarily in your lawyer's office. > Requiring a lawyer to know whether their client is guilty in advance amounts to asking them to predict the outcome of that process, to foresee the future. No, that's a different thing. Requiring a lawyer to know the facts is not requiring the lawyer to know how the court will rule in the case.
  - olalonde 4y ago
    They can form an opinion on whether their client is guilty. But they can't know whether they are correct until the verdict.
    - JohnFen 4y ago
      Well, sure they can, unless you mean "guilty" in the sense of a court finding them guilty rather than in the sense that they actually committed the crime.

chollida1 4y ago

Well as I had it explained to me. Run the following thought experiment. You are a lawyer. Your client is accused of robbing a bank. The bank has the serial numbers of the bills taken. Your client pays you in cash and the serial numbers match the stolen ones. if you agree that you are being paid by the proceeds of a crime, then congrats you agree with the law and now all you are figuring out is where the line is. Turns out its somewhere between a forensic audit of your client and 100% certainty that you're being paid with stolen funds. The government or prosecution claiming the funds you're being paid with are from the proceeds of crime is well within the ethical and legal bounds that lawyers are held to. Like many issues when it comes to professionals, there is often a burden on the professional to make sure they are acting ethically. Engineers can't build a building to a clients spec if it would be dangerous. Doctors have a duty of care to not harm a patient even if the patient wants to be harmed and lawyers have a duty of care to know the origins of the funds paying them. That's one of the burdens of being a professional Courts are more than happy to adjudicate if there is a gray area. Also if that doesn't convince you then remember, people can be forced to hand back assets that were stolen even if the owner had no way of knowing ti was stolen. The lawyers don't want to spend all that time defending SBF and be paid with stolen funds, just to have the courts come and tell them to pay back the money as it never belonged to SBF at all. It's in their own best interests to know and vet where the money came from.

SilasX 4y ago

In the sense of whether their client has committed the underlying acts they are accused of, yes, this is something a lawyer would definitely want to know, and try to find out, as it effects what legal defenses can actually work vs. are likely to be swiftly rebutted. (I realize there a much broader claims being made in this thread, like about where the payment money is bad and what obligations that prompts. I'm not attempting to address issues such as those, just the narrower topic above.)

freejazz 4y ago

Sorry, do you think ignorance is an excuse for a crime? I don't believe there is an intent requirement, so their mental state at the time of receiving the money is of no consequence.

olalonde 4y ago
Yes, it ought to be. Otherwise, you would be taking a big gamble anytime you accepted money from strangers. It would be quite impractical. Also, it goes beyond mere ignorance, it's unknowable. SBF's lawyers will find out whether he is guilty on the day that the verdict is pronounced.
- freejazz 4y ago
  >Yes, it ought to be. Lol, since when? Oh, your honor, I didn't know murder was BAD! > Otherwise, you would be taking a big gamble anytime you accepted money from strangers. Really? Hasn't been an issue for me at all. Are you sure it's that big of a gamble? Maybe you should think about the kind of people you are accepting money from? > It would be quite impractical. As I said, hasn't been a problem for me. And I'm an attorney too! I get paid! > Also, it goes beyond mere ignorance, it's unknowable. SBF's lawyers will find out whether he is guilty on the day that the verdict is pronounced. This is literally the opposite of what you described. They are lawyers with expertise in this exact kind of crime and they are well aware of the risk presented by taking money from him. They know he stole money. They know he stole money and saved it for himself.
  - olalonde 4y ago
    I was not talking about murder, I was talking about receiving money. It has to be the least enforced law ever... Because the chances of breaking that law as a phone company, or as a taxi driver are close to 100%. It's a bit sad that you are an attorney and don't seem to believe in due process. If his lawyers "know" that he is guilty, I hope for his sake that he finds lawyers that don't "know" it, given that he is pleading not guilty.
    - 4y ago

JohnFen 4y ago

> Are his lawyers supposed to do their own little investigation to figure out whether their client is actually guilty? Umm, yes? Not because of the money thing, but in order to do their job properly. I'd think that if they were doing their job properly, it would be pretty clear pretty quickly whether or not their client is guilty. And whether or not their client is guilty is important for them to know, because it will definitely affect how they proceed with defending their client.