8 ms·

Is it illegal to offer legal services to undesirables and/or criminals?

by kyleee 2y ago

alephnerd 2y ago
Yes. If you are directly aiding and abetting without any plausible attempt to minimize bad actors from using your services then absolutely. For example, CP absolutely exists on platforms like FB or IG, but Meta will absolutely try to moderate it away to the best of their ability and cooperate with law enforcement when it is brought to their attention. And like I have mentioned a couple times before, Telegram was only allowed to exist because the UAE allowed them to, and both the UAE and Russia gained ownership stakes in Telegram by 2021. Also, messaging apps can only legally operate in the UAE if they provide decryption keys to the UAE govt because all instant messaging apps are treated as VoIP under their Telco regulation laws. There have been plenty of cases where anti-Russian govt content was moderated away during the 2021 protests - https://www.wired.com/story/the-kremlin-has-entered-the-chat/ https://www.wired.com/story/the-kremlin-has-entered-the-chat...
- peoplefromibiza 2y ago
  > If you are directly aiding and abetting without any plausible attempt to minimize bad actors from using your service isn't this the definition of "criminal lawyer"?
  - alephnerd 2y ago
    If you are a criminal lawyer who is providing defense, that is acceptable because everyone is entitled to to a fair trial and defense. If you are a criminal lawyer who is directly abetting in criminal behavior (eg. a Saul Goodman type) you absolutely will lose your Bar License and open yourself up to criminal penalties. If you are a criminal lawyer who is in a situation where your client wants you to abet their criminal behavior, then you are expected to drop the client and potentially notify law enforcement.
    - throwaway48476 2y ago
      There was a recent gang related case in Georgia where several defense lawyers were charged for being a little too involved.
      - MertsA 2y ago
        Are you talking about Brian Steel? He was held in contempt because he refused to name his source that informed him of some misconduct by the judge (ex parte communication with a witness). That's hardly relevant here, the client wasn't involved at all as far as anyone knows. https://www.reddit.com/r/Lawyertalk/comments/1dd32ji/brian_steele_young_thugs_lawyer_held_in_criminal/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Lawyertalk/comments/1dd32ji/brian_s...
        themaninthedark 2y ago
        It was records and communication that the lawyer made on behalf of his client. More interesting is why the judge and prosecutors have not been referred to the bar for their illegal actions.
    - peoplefromibiza 2y ago
      > If you are a criminal lawyer who is directly abetting in criminal behavior Not a lawyer myself but I believe this is not a correct representation of the issue. A lawyer abetting in criminal behaviour is committing a crime, but the crime is not offering his services to criminals, which is completely legal. When offering their services to criminals law firm or individual lawyers in most cases are not required to report crimes they have been made aware of under the attorney-client privilege and are not required to ask to minimize bad actors from using their services. In short: unless they are committing crimes themselves, criminal lawyers are not required to stay clear from criminals, actually, usually the opposite is true. Again, presumption of innocence do exists.
      - alephnerd 2y ago
        Yep. Your explaination is basically what I was getting at In this case, Telegram showed bad faith moderation. They are not a lawyer, and don't operate with the same constraints.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - tialaramex 2y ago
    TV drama tends to give people the wrong idea. Your lawyers aren't allowed to aid you with doing any crimes, they're just advocates.
    - coliveira 2y ago
      This happens in real life all the time, just look at Trump's lawyer.
      - alephnerd 2y ago
        And they get suspended or disbarred as well as referred to LE.
    - peoplefromibiza 2y ago
      Please do not assume When in doubt, ask. I was replying to any plausible attempt to minimize bad actors from using your service I mentioned criminal lawyers because their job is literally to "offer their services to criminals or to people accused of being criminals" and they have no obligation whatsoever to minimize bad actors from using your service, in fact bad actors are usually their regular clientele and they are free to attract as many criminals as they like in any legal way they like. Helping a criminal to commit a crime it's an entirely different thing and anyway it must be proved in a court, it's not something that can be assumed on the basis of allegations (their clients are criminal, so they must be criminal too). That's why in that famous TV drama Jessy Pinkam says "You dont want a criminal lawyer, you want a Criminal. Lawyer.". The premise of this story is that Telegram offers a service which is very similar to safe deposit boxes, the bank it's not supposed to know what you keep in there hence they are not held responsible if they are used for illegal activities. In other words most of the times people do not know and are not required to know if they are dealing with criminals, but, even if they did, there are no legal reasons to avoid offering them your services other than to avoid problems and/or on moral grounds (which are perfectly understandable motives, but are still not a requirement to operate a business). Take bars, diners, restaurants, gas stations or hospitals, are they supposed to deny their services? And how would they exactly should take actions to minimize bad actors from using your service? If someone goes to a restaurant and talks about committing a crime, is the owner abetting the crime? I guess probably not, unless it is proven beyond any reasonable doubt that he actually is. It doesn't matter if it's true or false it only matters what the justice system can prove.
- averageRoyalty 2y ago
  > For example, CP absolutely exists on platforms like FB or IG, but Meta will absolutely try to moderate it away to the best of their ability Is this true? After decades now of a cat and mouse game, it could be argued that they are simply incapable. As such, the "best of their ability" would be using methods that don't suit their commercials - e.g verifying all users manually, requiring government ID, reviewing all posts and comments before they're posted, or shutting down completely. I understand these methods are suicidal in capitalism, but they're much closer to the "best of their ability". Why do we accept some of the largest companies in the world shrugging their shoulders and saying "well we're trying in ways that don't impact our bottom line"?
moqmar 2y ago
In most jurisdictions yes AFAIK, if those services directly help an illegal activity, and you knew about the illegal activity.
- whatnotests2 2y ago
  Ok, like selling gasoline to the getaway car driver?
  - forrestthewoods 2y ago
    > and you knew about the illegal behavior Your analogy is terrible and doesn’t make sense. If you provide a service that is used for illegal behavior AND you know it’s being used that way AND you explicitly market your services to users behaving illegally AND the majority of your product is used for illegal deeds THEN you’re gonna have a bad time. If one out of ten thousand people use your product for illegal deeds you’re fine. If it’s 9 out of 10 you probably aren’t.
    - coliveira 2y ago
      > If one out of ten thousand people use your product for illegal deeds you’re fine. This logic clearly makes the prison of someone like the owner of Telegram difficult to justify, since 99.999% of messages in telegram are completely legal.
      - forrestthewoods 2y ago
        If 10,000 people out of 10 million are doing illegal things and you know about it or you are going out of your way to turn a blind eye then you’re gonna have a bad time. This really isn’t that complicated.
        coliveira 2y ago
        But how would you know about this illegal activity, if the product can be used by anyone? Only if you were eavesdropping on your users...
ajross 2y ago
If you know your services are going to be used to commit a crime, then yes, that makes you an accessory and basically all jurisdictions (I know basically nothing about French criminal law) can prosecute you for that. Crime is, y'know, illegal.
- ipaddr 2y ago
  Shouldn't gmail be closing as they know a percentage will be used for crime?
  - coliveira 2y ago
    The answer to this charade is that to "prove" that you're not doing anything wrong you need to secretly provide all data from anyone that the government doesn't like. Otherwise you go to jail.
- nomdep 2y ago
  I'm appalled that you would argue in good faith that a tool for communicating in secret can be reasonably described as a service used to commit a crime. Why aren't all gun manufacturers in jail then? They must know a percentage of their products are going to be used to commit crimes. A much larger percentage than those using Telegram to commit one.
  - amanaplanacanal 2y ago
    The difference is knowing some percentage will be used to commit crimes, and knowing a specific individual is going to use it to commit a crime.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - coliveira 2y ago
    Even worse, in the US they clearly go out of their way to lobby for no control of gun sales. They should be indicted as facilitating crime.
Muromec 2y ago
Try to deposit 10k to your bank account and then, when they call you and ask the obvious question, answer that you sold some meth or robbed someone. They will totally be fine with this answer, as they are just a platform for providing money services and well, you can always just pay for everything in cash.
- akira2501 2y ago
  If you deposit more than 10k the IRS simply gets automatically notified. No one calls you to ask where you got the money. The IRS actually expects you to report income earned from illegal activities, they _explicitly_ state this in Publication 17.
  - dawnerd 2y ago
    And even then you don’t have to tell them it’s illegal. Just what you earned. Frankly they don’t care where it came from as long as you report and pay.
    - thaumasiotes 2y ago
      No, you have to specify where it came from. You don't have to say what crime you committed, but you'd list the income under "income from illegal activities".
      - dawnerd 2y ago
        It’s very loose. You can just say cash and that’s fine.
        thaumasiotes 2y ago
        > You can just say cash and that’s fine. Cash isn't income. It's an asset. You don't even report assets. You report income, and you have to specify where it came from.
cbsmith 2y ago
Aiding and abetting. It's a crime.

Is it illegal to offer legal services to undesirables and/or criminals?

by kyleee 2y ago

Is it illegal to offer legal services to undesirables and/or criminals?

Yes. If you are directly aiding and abetting without any plausible attempt to minimize bad actors from using your services then absolutely. For example, CP absolutely exists on platforms like FB or IG, but Meta will absolutely try to moderate it away to the best of their ability and cooperate with law enforcement when it is brought to their attention. And like I have mentioned a couple times before, Telegram was only allowed to exist because the UAE allowed them to, and both the UAE and Russia gained ownership stakes in Telegram by 2021. Also, messaging apps can only legally operate in the UAE if they provide decryption keys to the UAE govt because all instant messaging apps are treated as VoIP under their Telco regulation laws. There have been plenty of cases where anti-Russian govt content was moderated away during the 2021 protests - https://www.wired.com/story/the-kremlin-has-entered-the-chat/ https://www.wired.com/story/the-kremlin-has-entered-the-chat...

peoplefromibiza 2y ago
> If you are directly aiding and abetting without any plausible attempt to minimize bad actors from using your service isn't this the definition of "criminal lawyer"?
- alephnerd 2y ago
  If you are a criminal lawyer who is providing defense, that is acceptable because everyone is entitled to to a fair trial and defense. If you are a criminal lawyer who is directly abetting in criminal behavior (eg. a Saul Goodman type) you absolutely will lose your Bar License and open yourself up to criminal penalties. If you are a criminal lawyer who is in a situation where your client wants you to abet their criminal behavior, then you are expected to drop the client and potentially notify law enforcement.
  - throwaway48476 2y ago
    There was a recent gang related case in Georgia where several defense lawyers were charged for being a little too involved.
    - MertsA 2y ago
      Are you talking about Brian Steel? He was held in contempt because he refused to name his source that informed him of some misconduct by the judge (ex parte communication with a witness). That's hardly relevant here, the client wasn't involved at all as far as anyone knows. https://www.reddit.com/r/Lawyertalk/comments/1dd32ji/brian_steele_young_thugs_lawyer_held_in_criminal/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Lawyertalk/comments/1dd32ji/brian_s...
      - themaninthedark 2y ago
        It was records and communication that the lawyer made on behalf of his client. More interesting is why the judge and prosecutors have not been referred to the bar for their illegal actions.
  - peoplefromibiza 2y ago
    > If you are a criminal lawyer who is directly abetting in criminal behavior Not a lawyer myself but I believe this is not a correct representation of the issue. A lawyer abetting in criminal behaviour is committing a crime, but the crime is not offering his services to criminals, which is completely legal. When offering their services to criminals law firm or individual lawyers in most cases are not required to report crimes they have been made aware of under the attorney-client privilege and are not required to ask to minimize bad actors from using their services. In short: unless they are committing crimes themselves, criminal lawyers are not required to stay clear from criminals, actually, usually the opposite is true. Again, presumption of innocence do exists.
    - alephnerd 2y ago
      Yep. Your explaination is basically what I was getting at In this case, Telegram showed bad faith moderation. They are not a lawyer, and don't operate with the same constraints.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- tialaramex 2y ago
  TV drama tends to give people the wrong idea. Your lawyers aren't allowed to aid you with doing any crimes, they're just advocates.
  - coliveira 2y ago
    This happens in real life all the time, just look at Trump's lawyer.
    - alephnerd 2y ago
      And they get suspended or disbarred as well as referred to LE.
  - peoplefromibiza 2y ago
    Please do not assume When in doubt, ask. I was replying to any plausible attempt to minimize bad actors from using your service I mentioned criminal lawyers because their job is literally to "offer their services to criminals or to people accused of being criminals" and they have no obligation whatsoever to minimize bad actors from using your service, in fact bad actors are usually their regular clientele and they are free to attract as many criminals as they like in any legal way they like. Helping a criminal to commit a crime it's an entirely different thing and anyway it must be proved in a court, it's not something that can be assumed on the basis of allegations (their clients are criminal, so they must be criminal too). That's why in that famous TV drama Jessy Pinkam says "You dont want a criminal lawyer, you want a Criminal. Lawyer.". The premise of this story is that Telegram offers a service which is very similar to safe deposit boxes, the bank it's not supposed to know what you keep in there hence they are not held responsible if they are used for illegal activities. In other words most of the times people do not know and are not required to know if they are dealing with criminals, but, even if they did, there are no legal reasons to avoid offering them your services other than to avoid problems and/or on moral grounds (which are perfectly understandable motives, but are still not a requirement to operate a business). Take bars, diners, restaurants, gas stations or hospitals, are they supposed to deny their services? And how would they exactly should take actions to minimize bad actors from using your service? If someone goes to a restaurant and talks about committing a crime, is the owner abetting the crime? I guess probably not, unless it is proven beyond any reasonable doubt that he actually is. It doesn't matter if it's true or false it only matters what the justice system can prove.
averageRoyalty 2y ago
> For example, CP absolutely exists on platforms like FB or IG, but Meta will absolutely try to moderate it away to the best of their ability Is this true? After decades now of a cat and mouse game, it could be argued that they are simply incapable. As such, the "best of their ability" would be using methods that don't suit their commercials - e.g verifying all users manually, requiring government ID, reviewing all posts and comments before they're posted, or shutting down completely. I understand these methods are suicidal in capitalism, but they're much closer to the "best of their ability". Why do we accept some of the largest companies in the world shrugging their shoulders and saying "well we're trying in ways that don't impact our bottom line"?

moqmar 2y ago

In most jurisdictions yes AFAIK, if those services directly help an illegal activity, and you knew about the illegal activity.

whatnotests2 2y ago
Ok, like selling gasoline to the getaway car driver?
- forrestthewoods 2y ago
  > and you knew about the illegal behavior Your analogy is terrible and doesn’t make sense. If you provide a service that is used for illegal behavior AND you know it’s being used that way AND you explicitly market your services to users behaving illegally AND the majority of your product is used for illegal deeds THEN you’re gonna have a bad time. If one out of ten thousand people use your product for illegal deeds you’re fine. If it’s 9 out of 10 you probably aren’t.
  - coliveira 2y ago
    > If one out of ten thousand people use your product for illegal deeds you’re fine. This logic clearly makes the prison of someone like the owner of Telegram difficult to justify, since 99.999% of messages in telegram are completely legal.
    - forrestthewoods 2y ago
      If 10,000 people out of 10 million are doing illegal things and you know about it or you are going out of your way to turn a blind eye then you’re gonna have a bad time. This really isn’t that complicated.
      - coliveira 2y ago
        But how would you know about this illegal activity, if the product can be used by anyone? Only if you were eavesdropping on your users...

ajross 2y ago

If you know your services are going to be used to commit a crime, then yes, that makes you an accessory and basically all jurisdictions (I know basically nothing about French criminal law) can prosecute you for that. Crime is, y'know, illegal.

ipaddr 2y ago
Shouldn't gmail be closing as they know a percentage will be used for crime?
- coliveira 2y ago
  The answer to this charade is that to "prove" that you're not doing anything wrong you need to secretly provide all data from anyone that the government doesn't like. Otherwise you go to jail.
nomdep 2y ago
I'm appalled that you would argue in good faith that a tool for communicating in secret can be reasonably described as a service used to commit a crime. Why aren't all gun manufacturers in jail then? They must know a percentage of their products are going to be used to commit crimes. A much larger percentage than those using Telegram to commit one.
- amanaplanacanal 2y ago
  The difference is knowing some percentage will be used to commit crimes, and knowing a specific individual is going to use it to commit a crime.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- coliveira 2y ago
  Even worse, in the US they clearly go out of their way to lobby for no control of gun sales. They should be indicted as facilitating crime.

Muromec 2y ago

Try to deposit 10k to your bank account and then, when they call you and ask the obvious question, answer that you sold some meth or robbed someone. They will totally be fine with this answer, as they are just a platform for providing money services and well, you can always just pay for everything in cash.

akira2501 2y ago
If you deposit more than 10k the IRS simply gets automatically notified. No one calls you to ask where you got the money. The IRS actually expects you to report income earned from illegal activities, they _explicitly_ state this in Publication 17.
- dawnerd 2y ago
  And even then you don’t have to tell them it’s illegal. Just what you earned. Frankly they don’t care where it came from as long as you report and pay.
  - thaumasiotes 2y ago
    No, you have to specify where it came from. You don't have to say what crime you committed, but you'd list the income under "income from illegal activities".
    - dawnerd 2y ago
      It’s very loose. You can just say cash and that’s fine.
      - thaumasiotes 2y ago
        > You can just say cash and that’s fine. Cash isn't income. It's an asset. You don't even report assets. You report income, and you have to specify where it came from.

cbsmith 2y ago

Aiding and abetting. It's a crime.