12 ms·
Judge acquits Backpage co-founder Michael Lacey on most counts
- nadermx 3y ago"And on June 17, Lacey is scheduled to be sentenced on the one count—international concealment of money laundering—on which the jury found him guilty. It comes with a possible sentence of up to 20 years in federal prison. Lacey plans to appeal his conviction on this count, and there seems like a good chance it will be successful, since the money he allegedly "concealed" was reported to the federal government with all the proper paperwork. But he could still face prison time as that appeals process plays out." How was he found guilty of concealed money when he reported it to begin with? Then could still serve prison time for it.
- beaeglebeachh 3y agoAnd how is it money laundering if it turned out the money wasn't proceeds of crime.
- brookst 3y agoI spent a few minutes trying to figure that out, but Reason is incredibly slanted, they just link to some even nuttier site, and even starting with news I couldn't find specifics of the one count he was convicted on. But I'd be a little skeptical of Reason's handwave "properly reported to the government". Reported on taxes? To SEC? As part of disclosure for this trial? One way it could be money laundering without being proceeds of a crime is if he took $1M from Pablo Escobar for a huge advertising commit and then refunded $900k to Able Paleo Bars, LLC for unused ad spend.
- dannyobrien 3y agoWhat is this "nuttier" site you're talking about? Do you mean https://frontpageconfidential.com/aboutfpc/ https://frontpageconfidential.com/aboutfpc/ , the site run by Lacey and Larkin and their fellow journalists, in order to defend themselves?
- webspinner 3y agoReason is not slanted. It's a very libertarian site and a lot of people come from the left.
- klausa 3y ago>X is not slanted. It's a <specific slant being described>.
- webspinner 3y agoI meant like say brieghbart is, it's a conservative source. I've never known of reason to be such thing though.
- catlover76 3y ago[dead]
- yareal 3y agoAll news media has a bias, it's literally impossible to serve a finite news set and not exert some editorial control. However, if you describe a news site as (very political ideology) I think it's fair to consider it slanted.
- roenxi 3y agoWhile that is philosophically true, but this thread is illustrating why that isn't a helpful perspective . Consider a media organisation has a bias towards accurate reporting with a view to helping readers achieve the best outcome for themselves and good outcomes for society. We could correctly call such an organisation "slanted", but it is missing the point that there some slants are privileged by virtue of leading the reader to act in a reasonable and rational manner while others don't. I'm not sure if the US - or the world - has any of those. But the generic "there is a slant" point is useless. What matters is what the slant leads people to do, what information the slant is omitting and whether said slant is a good one on balance. If calling a media organisations "slanted" doesn't imply "slanted [in a way I think is potentially bad and relevant]" then the word is useless and shouldn't be used.
- Niten 3y agoMedia Bias Fact Check ranks Reason as a "Right-Center" biased website with a "High" rating for factual reporting: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/reason/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/reason/ They certainly approach stories with an editorial perspective, but they're generally factually reliable and hardly "incredibly slanted".
- Retric 3y agoReason’s libertarian bias sits outside the mainstream Left-Right axis of US political discourse. So what looks centrist or right leaning on a 2D scale is actually heavily biased in a different political direction.
- yareal 3y agoI don't think there's much Left in US politics, unless you mean in the language of US politics, where somehow Democrats are considered "Left".
- Retric 3y agoParty stances are always going to reflect the country they operate in. On an absolute scale Republican’s support for expanding Medicare drug coverage was left leaning compared to at the time current law even though it’s to the right of many countries and Democrat’s stance on the issue.
- stareatgoats 3y agoyeah, the left/right dichotomy is gradually becoming outright meaningless - usually just sloppily slapped labels that fit an agenda. Important nuances go completely unnoticed in the left/right universe, like libertarians siding with communists, and neocons siding with democrats - or whoever thinks regime changing from above is a good idea. Anarchism, militarism, libertarianism, conservativism, fascism, welfarestateism, social democracy, etc, these are all useful terms. Left and right; not so much.
- ianhawes 3y agoReason would indeed seem slanted compared to traditional liberal media, specifically as it relates to not regurgitating the DOJ’s narrative. Happy Reason subscriber here.
- fieryscribe 3y agoFellow Reason subscriber here. They're more balanced than most.
- ciabattabread 3y agoReason may be "slanted", but you can follow their logic in their articles, regardless of your stance.
- dmurray 3y agoYou could receive money legitimately (let's say, donations to your synagogue) and funnel it to politically disfavoured causes (for example, anti-war protesters in the Middle East). It doesn't fit the metaphor of money laundering, of turning dirty money into clean, but it's usually prosecuted under the same statutes.
- petertodd 3y agoThat isn't what money laundering is. Money laundering is taking illegally gotten funds and turning it into apparently legal funds. What you're describing is fraud: you took money for one purpose, and used it for something the donators didn't want it used for. Notably, it is not money laundering to obscure the source of funds when they didn't come from an illicit source. Nor is it money laundering to simply obscure the source of funds, so they don't come from any apparent source. If that were money laundering, it would be illegal to withdraw cash from an ATM, which is obviously absurd.
- bagels 3y agoWhat statute? I don't know either way what the actual definition is.
- CPLX 3y agoMoney laundering can be defined as concealing either or both the source and destination of the funds. Channeling legal money into illegal activities qualifies as well. Not clear either is applicable to this case however.
- dmurray 3y agoNo, the donators gave you the money to use as you see fit. You're not betraying their trust: you're betraying your government, by funding a movement with aims inimical to them. A relevant statute in the US is the USA PATRIOT Act [0], specifically Title III, which deals with "International money laundering abatement and terrorist financing". It absolutely does restrict transmission of clean money to non-favoured political entities, often in the same breath as it forbids actual money laundering. It does not forbid withdrawing cash from an ATM, but it does forbid a bank from issuing you an ATM card if they should have guessed you would use the money for the wrong purposes. [0] https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ56/PLAW-107publ56.htm https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ56/PLAW-107publ56.htm
- refurb 3y agoMoney laundering laws doesn't require that the money be proceeds of crime. It only requires that you do things in an attempt to obscure the source of the money. For example structuring cash deposits. If you have a pile of legitimate cash, say through a cash business (you pay all taxes), but you intentionally make multiple $9,000 deposits to avoid generating a CTR (currency transaction report for cash deposits over $10,000), congrats, you violated money laundering laws.
- dale_glass 3y agoSo out of curiosity, what if you run a business that just happens to generate $9K of cash regularly, for any reason? Are you supposed to risk keeping it on premises until enough adds up, or you should tell the bank to file a CTR, or something else?
- dzonga 3y agolike tax evasion laws -- they're like a joker card/ wildcard -- to law enforcement. to be played when they wanna arrest you. that's what mobsters get nabbed on, corrupt gvt officials etc. it's not difficult to prove anyone has tax evaded.
- mason55 3y agoIt’s not the $9k deposit that’s illegal, it’s structuring your deposits to avoid the $10k limit. The same actions can be legal or illegal depending on your in intent. In your example, the $9k deposits are perfectly fine. Although if you really always deposit $9k you’ll probably get some questions.
- refurb 3y agoYou’re at risk of some over zealous prosecutor accusing you of structuring.
- underseacables 3y agoOverzealous prosecution.
- azinman2 3y agoHow do you know that?
- busterarm 3y agoBecause we know that trying to destroy Backpage was the personal crusade of Cindy McCain and it became very personal. This has long been written about.
- beaeglebeachh 3y agoAny links? John bang a Backpage ho, or why the hate?
- etc-hosts 3y agothere's tons in Arizona media. https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/michael-lacey-jim-larkin-cindy-john-mccain-backpage-new-times-10773866 https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/michael-lacey-jim-larki...
- paganel 3y ago> She is the widow of U.S. Senator John McCain from Arizona, who was the 2008 Republican presidential nominee. Nepo-wife. And they were saying the Soviets were a decrepit society at the top, the US from today is not much better.
- busterarm 3y agoIt's worse than that. She was a rich heiress that he left his first wife for because Cindy had the bankroll to fund his political aspirations. He was as much of a leech as she is.
- 3y ago
- webspinner 3y agoThat's a question and a half. Since he reported it, it isn't hidden.
- mozman 3y agoThis guy got into a pissing contest with the Arizona AG, which led to FOSTA/SESTA over the casual encounters page. This has years of history. I worked in a similar industry to backpage for 11 years.
- lazide 3y agoarguably, it is also helped get Kamala Harris into the White House. [https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-kamala-d-harris-announces-criminal-charges-against-senior https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-kama...]
- infinghxsg 3y ago[dead]
- superkuh 3y agoTypical FBI. Make up dozens and dozens of bogus charges and commit to constant harassment until enough of the people targeted kill themselves. Then when a real judge finally gets involved slink away. Just like with Aaron Swartz and Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio. Dear people flagging this, please stop perceiving my statements through your domestic political lenses. I am not talking politics here. Just because your team is currently pro-FBI or against-FBI doesn't mean I am talking about how the FBI interacts with your team. I am not.
- wmf 3y agoI feel sorry for any jury who has to keep track of 86 counts. The Ross Ulbricht and SBF trials look simple by comparison.
- webspinner 3y agoI've seen state cases that have come close to that. They're usually mass shootings, or someone ran over 75 people with a car.
- Tomte 3y agoThere is a great judgment of Germany‘s highest courts from some years ago, where a criminal verdict was reversed and remanded. Almost in passing the court noted that the (professional) judges should have been more careful. Of the xx counts, some were acquitted, some convicted, some both, and some neither. Of the convictions the lower court had sometimes given prison term y in the upper part of the judgment, but prison term z lower down in the text. And so on. The higher court dryly wrote that special care has to be given when dealing with many counts.
- ALittleLight 3y agoSeems like there should be an optional trial end, in addition to conviction or acquittal, for "prosecution shouldn't have brought this case", where the accused would get some kind of compensation. I don't know the details of this case, but I remember hearing about it many years ago. I can't imagine the expense and stress of such a trial, dragging on for so long, and then at the end it's just "Okay, guess you're not guilty." Sometimes it seems like prosecutors brought a reasonable case given the evidence and tried it fairly. In this case, I believe acquittal is the right call. Other times it seems like a case that shouldn't have been brought and you should be compensated for that and/or the prosecutor should be punished.
- petertodd 3y agoNo need to make it optional. If the state can't convict on all counts, you should get full compensation for all expenses, including your legal bills, any time spent in prison, lost income, etc. In a case like this it would be millions of dollars, maybe tens of millions. Of course, this case probably wouldn't have happened in the first place if that was the way prosecutions worked... Most criminal cases are open-and-shut deals where the defendant is clearly guilty, so this wouldn't change much on average. But it would ensure that 1) prosecutors only prosecute what they can actually prove, 2) innocent peoples' lives aren't destroyed.
- lazide 3y agoCan you imagine the public angst around the OJ trial if THAT was what happened?
- petertodd 3y agoI'd rather people like OJ get some money out of a botched prosecution than the alternative. Most likely, we'd see a lot less botched prosecutions.
- mywittyname 3y agoHow many botched prosecutions are there? Most have a 90%+ conviction rate because normal people can't stand up to professional interrogation. Even innocent people can incriminate themselves to the point where it isn't worth the risk of trial, so they plead to a lesser offense. Spend thousands going to court and possible spending 5 years in jail vs. plead out for probation. The fact that going to court and winning might see you get legal fees plus a bit of money back doesn't change the calculus -- the worst case outcome is still prison.
- yieldcrv 3y ago> The first [trial], in 2021, was declared a mistrial after prosecutors and their witnesses couldn't stop talking about sex trafficking despite none of the defendants facing sex trafficking charges Thats always been my take on the backpage case, but I didnt feel comfortable talking about it because people are too emotionally invested in curbing sex trafficking We’d be better off just treating it as labor trafficking, and not bothering with the non-trafficked people just like the rest of the job market.
- huytersd 3y agoGood. Prostitution should be legal and regulated to begin with. People are getting HIV at an alarming rate because the whole system is unregulated.
- lupire 3y agoHIV turned out to be easier to treat than prevent.
- hi-v-rocknroll 3y agoSort of. PrEP exists for high risk populations. For cures: Currently, it is if you're able and willing to wipe out your own bone marrow and able to find a compatible donor who's immune. 2 giant expensive and risky IF's. CRISPR personalized medicine may also work: https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/10/25/1082306/gene-editing-crispr-hiv-experiment/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/10/25/1082306/gene-edi...
- huytersd 3y agoNo one does that surgery unless you have very advanced lymphoma. It’s not a cure.
- hi-v-rocknroll 3y agoYou're weaseling with the ambiguity of the word "cure". I already stated the extreme conditions that approach would require. It has resulted in deliberate, although incidental, cures several times. It was certainly a cure for them. CRISPR personalized approaches are more promising by precisely excising vDNA. There is no panacea here.
- huytersd 3y agoBased on your username, I’m not sure if you have HIV but EBT 101 has begun human trials as of last year and we should find out how it turns out before the end of this year. It’s from the same team that was able to eliminate SIV from primates using the same techniques.
- nailer 3y agoAmerica is bizarre. Technically prostitution is illegal in my state, Googling “new York city escort” shows thousands of results.
- ahazred8ta 3y agoBarney Miller had an episode where a gal was delivering I♥NY buttons to hotel rooms for $75 per button.
- ahazred8ta 3y agoIn the Soviet Union, you would find street corners with the number 50 chalked on the sidewalk, and women standing nearby smoking. Police would gladly explain that there is no law against standing next to a number.
- hi-v-rocknroll 3y ago[flagged]
- webspinner 3y agoWell he should be acquitted on all counts to do with the founding of the site. If he laundered money, that isn't good.
- kaliqt 3y agoYou have got to be kidding me. The government is the biggest criminal, this guy is nothing, this shouldn't even be a discussion.
- webspinner 3y agoSure, that's why I said "if."
- ashish10 3y agoSuch a sheer waste of time, money and efforts which could have been directed elsewhere.
- K0balt 3y agoWhat an absolute waste of public resources. Somehow, cases should be weighed for public benefit rather than political gain. Idk how we can do this, but maybe open online referendum on the public desire to prosecute, with a mandate to heavily consider but not necessarily follow the public opinion?
- hedora 3y agoThere are 84 independent charges, the majority were overturned by a judge, and at least one mistrial has been declared due to misconduct by the prosecution. This looks like prosecutorial abuse to me. Wrongful convictions in the US are way too common. With that many chargers and cascading retrials like this, I'd expect at least one false conviction regardless of who is on trial. If the guy's guilty, fine. They should have charged him with things that were supported by solid evidence instead of stuffing charges so they can keep trying him for the same things over and over until they get a guilty verdict. This sort of case is the reason double jeopardy is supposed to be illegal in the US.
- trogdor 3y agoIf you want to read the actual decision: https://frontpageconfidential.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/HRule29.pdf https://frontpageconfidential.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04...
- tptacek 3y agoLike a lot of Elizabeth Nolan Brown's Backpage coverage, this feels misleading. To the extent Lacey succeeded in court, he did so on technical grounds; the decision is extraordinarily damning about Backpage itself, effectively casting it as a knowing and important link in the supply chain of human trafficking. Which, of course, is what it was. You don't so much get that analysis from Reason; you have to read the (quite long) verdict instead, which is linked from the story.