> I'm sorry, do not pass go, do not collect $200, go straight to jail. That's a disproportionate amount of bluster given that 1. That was a single counterexamp

> I'm sorry, do not pass go, do not collect $200, go straight to jail. That's a disproportionate amount of bluster given that 1. That was a single counterexample. 2. The article you posted says: Federal District Judge Liam O’Grady said: "There’s nothing unlawful about maybe 95 per cent of the business he [Dixon] conducted” but found criminal fault in his willingness to assist would-be applicants and others to lie to federal agencies, the Washington Post reported. In other words, the polygraph-beating information was not illegal, but he was prosecuted for helping people lie to federal agencies (a crime itself). Undercover agents ensnared him via a technicality. But if the class were restricted to polygraph-beating, without persuading students to lie to federales, he wouldn't have served his relatively minor sentence of 8 months. Contrast one guy going to jail for 8 months with the hundreds of millions of dollars seized from people not charged with crimes in the original article. Consider the zillions of materials and resources available for learning to assault someone, to hack into computer systems, to break locks, websites on "how to rob someone" (google it) and make explosives and the distinction is clear.