6 ms·

...while malicious, is not criminal. I think this case, along with Swartz's case, and the Alfred Anaya case that was on the HN front page last night [1] all se

by rosser 14y ago

...while malicious, is not criminal. I think this case, along with Swartz's case, and the Alfred Anaya case that was on the HN front page last night [1] all serve to demonstrate that at this point, a criminal act is whatever a Federal prosecutor decides is a criminal act. In the Anaya case, the "crime" of which he was convicted wasn't even illegal under Federal law, and yet he's serving 24 years. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5413127 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5413127

rayiner 14y ago
You have to be joking. You're linking to an article about a guy who installs secret compartments in vehicles for narcotics traffickers. Even after he finds a floor stuffed with $800,000 in cash, he continues to help them, repairing the compartment in one car and agreeing to install a compartment in another. What is so hard to understand about the concept that something may or may not be a crime depending on context? Standing in front of a door? Not illegal in general. Standing in front of a door to keep police from being able to chase a bank robber? That's aiding and abetting and is and should be illegal.
- rosser 14y ago
  I'm not saying Anaya wasn't an idiot — even willfully so — or that he shouldn't have been charged under California statute on traps and their being used to transport narcotics. The issue in his case isn't that he wasn't guilty of a crime; it's that he wasn't guilty of a Federal crime — both because there is no such Federal crime, and because he could perfectly well have been prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced under perfectly applicable State law. Contrariwise, do you seriously believe that he deserves more than twice the sentence that the people who actually trafficked the drugs got? Do you actually think that your notional door-blocking person should have his case usurped by the Feds and get a stiffer sentence than the bank robber he aided and abetted? (Edited)
  - rayiner 14y ago
    Building hidden compartments for people in SoCal is stupid. Building them after you see 800k stuffed in a car is not just the sign of an idiot, it's the sign of someone consciously choosing to profit from facilitating criminal activity. And it can be totally valid to punish one person who helps out many criminals more harshly than one single criminal. It's also the case that sentences are handed down not just based on what the defendant did, but what the prosecutor could prove, and its quite possible that it Anaya left more evidence that could be used against him than a seasoned criminal.
    - fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
      >it's the sign of someone consciously choosing to profit from facilitating criminal activity. And it can be totally valid to punish one person who helps out many criminals more harshly than one single criminal. It is now a matter of public record that HSBC, Wachovia, JP Morgan, and others have laundered huge sums of 'drug money' in operations ongoing for many years. So, for those individuals and companies who continue to do business with the banks involved, are they "consciously choosing to profit from facilitating criminal activity"? Can a businessman refuse service to someone they suspect are involved in criminal activity? Does a businessman have a duty to refuse service to someone they suspect are involved in criminal activity?
    - rosser 14y ago
      Holy hand-wavy, HN. Yes or no: do you think the Feds' actions in this case were kosher? Do you think the Feds pulling shit like that is kosher in general?
- tlrobinson 14y ago
  Why should installing hidden compartments be illegal? As the article states, they are "a popular luxury item among the wealthy and shady alike". Is having large amounts of cash in your vehicle illegal? Do you believe distributing BitTorrent and Tor should be illegal as well? After all, they're used for copyright infringement and other nefarious purposes, but also distributing Linux distibutions and avoiding totalitarian government surveillance. If we considered providing everything that could possibly be used for illegal purposes "aiding and abetting" then nearly everyone would be criminals.
  - aidenn0 14y ago
    Having $800k in cash in your vehicle is in fact illegal in California.
    - tlrobinson 14y ago
      Well that's bullshit (the law, that is)
    - sneak 14y ago
      ...once again winning the competition for worst state ever.
      - 3825 14y ago
        I think the 10k cash in person limit comes from the patriot act which is nationwide. Being the largest state, California does arguably near the most of the responsibility for the tragedy that is the patriot act but calling it the worst state is not fair. Did California have a law prohibiting transporting large sums of cash before? Can you link me please?
        sneak 14y ago
        The PATRIOT Act does not prohibit carrying cash. You are thinking of the $10k limit on undeclared currency at the border. That's pre-PATRIOT.

by rosser 14y ago

rayiner 14y ago

You have to be joking. You're linking to an article about a guy who installs secret compartments in vehicles for narcotics traffickers. Even after he finds a floor stuffed with $800,000 in cash, he continues to help them, repairing the compartment in one car and agreeing to install a compartment in another. What is so hard to understand about the concept that something may or may not be a crime depending on context? Standing in front of a door? Not illegal in general. Standing in front of a door to keep police from being able to chase a bank robber? That's aiding and abetting and is and should be illegal.

rosser 14y ago
I'm not saying Anaya wasn't an idiot — even willfully so — or that he shouldn't have been charged under California statute on traps and their being used to transport narcotics. The issue in his case isn't that he wasn't guilty of a crime; it's that he wasn't guilty of a Federal crime — both because there is no such Federal crime, and because he could perfectly well have been prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced under perfectly applicable State law. Contrariwise, do you seriously believe that he deserves more than twice the sentence that the people who actually trafficked the drugs got? Do you actually think that your notional door-blocking person should have his case usurped by the Feds and get a stiffer sentence than the bank robber he aided and abetted? (Edited)
- rayiner 14y ago
  Building hidden compartments for people in SoCal is stupid. Building them after you see 800k stuffed in a car is not just the sign of an idiot, it's the sign of someone consciously choosing to profit from facilitating criminal activity. And it can be totally valid to punish one person who helps out many criminals more harshly than one single criminal. It's also the case that sentences are handed down not just based on what the defendant did, but what the prosecutor could prove, and its quite possible that it Anaya left more evidence that could be used against him than a seasoned criminal.
  - fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
    >it's the sign of someone consciously choosing to profit from facilitating criminal activity. And it can be totally valid to punish one person who helps out many criminals more harshly than one single criminal. It is now a matter of public record that HSBC, Wachovia, JP Morgan, and others have laundered huge sums of 'drug money' in operations ongoing for many years. So, for those individuals and companies who continue to do business with the banks involved, are they "consciously choosing to profit from facilitating criminal activity"? Can a businessman refuse service to someone they suspect are involved in criminal activity? Does a businessman have a duty to refuse service to someone they suspect are involved in criminal activity?
  - rosser 14y ago
    Holy hand-wavy, HN. Yes or no: do you think the Feds' actions in this case were kosher? Do you think the Feds pulling shit like that is kosher in general?
tlrobinson 14y ago
Why should installing hidden compartments be illegal? As the article states, they are "a popular luxury item among the wealthy and shady alike". Is having large amounts of cash in your vehicle illegal? Do you believe distributing BitTorrent and Tor should be illegal as well? After all, they're used for copyright infringement and other nefarious purposes, but also distributing Linux distibutions and avoiding totalitarian government surveillance. If we considered providing everything that could possibly be used for illegal purposes "aiding and abetting" then nearly everyone would be criminals.
- aidenn0 14y ago
  Having $800k in cash in your vehicle is in fact illegal in California.
  - tlrobinson 14y ago
    Well that's bullshit (the law, that is)
  - sneak 14y ago
    ...once again winning the competition for worst state ever.
    - 3825 14y ago
      I think the 10k cash in person limit comes from the patriot act which is nationwide. Being the largest state, California does arguably near the most of the responsibility for the tragedy that is the patriot act but calling it the worst state is not fair. Did California have a law prohibiting transporting large sums of cash before? Can you link me please?
      - sneak 14y ago
        The PATRIOT Act does not prohibit carrying cash. You are thinking of the $10k limit on undeclared currency at the border. That's pre-PATRIOT.