4 ms·

Nothing. Prop 47 is a state measure for simple possession. This is conspiracy to traffic, interstate wire fraud, federal crimes prosecuted under federal statu

Nothing. Prop 47 is a state measure for simple possession. This is conspiracy to traffic, interstate wire fraud, federal crimes prosecuted under federal statutes. Even if these were state charges Prop 47 didn't really change much (or anything) sentencing for sales.

msandford 12y ago
Conspiracy to traffic? Doesn't seem like it. Is it something that makes trafficking easier? Sure. But who did the trafficking? The seller and the buyer. Wire fraud? If it's the sale of something illegal I don't think that suddenly makes it wire fraud. Further, he's not charged with that. The sale is still completed. It's an illegal sale, but not fraud. Fraud would be if someone said they were going to sell you cocaine and instead shipped you powdered sugar.
- at-fates-hands 12y ago
  >> Conspiracy to traffic? Just in case you didn't know: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_%28criminal%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_%28criminal%29 Conspiracy law usually does not require proof of specific intent by the defendants to injure any specific person to establish an illegal agreement. Instead, usually the law requires only that the conspirators have agreed to engage in a certain illegal act. Clearly, there was an agreement set forth. The owner of SR2.0 took money in exchange for people selling their goods and services on his site. If the site had some kind of terms of the agreement, which sellers had to ok, then he's screwed. >> Wire fraud? http://definitions.uslegal.com/w/wire-fraud/ http://definitions.uslegal.com/w/wire-fraud/ The essential element to be proved is that the person knowingly and willfully devised or intended to devise a scheme to defraud; and that the use of the interstate wire communications facilities was closely related to the scheme because the person either wired something or caused it to be wired in interstate commerce in an attempt to execute or carry out the scheme. This means he knew what he was doing was illegal and the use of the internet to essentially launder his money is what they're going after. Not the sale of the narcotics, but the transfer of money for ill gotten gains, which defrauded the US Government of tax revenue.
- Estragon 12y ago
  "Conspiracy has been defined in the United States as an agreement of two or more people to commit a crime, or to accomplish a legal end through illegal actions." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(criminal)#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(criminal)#United_St... Thus it's conspiracy if you are party to an agreement which involves you receiving a bitcoin commission (legal end) as a result of the trafficking of drugs (illegal action.) If they're charging wire fraud, I think that may be part two of the complaint, "Conspiracy to Commit and Aid and Abet Computer Hacking." Probably people were using the site to sell hacking services or hacking tools which could be used to defraud people. https://pdf.yt/d/RpyX9_xmapTkhmkb https://pdf.yt/d/RpyX9_xmapTkhmkb
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
    What if you don't take a cut of the transaction? If there's some flat fee that people pay regardless of whether there is an illegal drug transaction, is that then a conspiracy?
    - mpyne 12y ago
      Perhaps not, but if you know (or reasonably should know) that a crime is being committed and then don't report it, now you're an accomplice to the crime. It's hard to miss all the ads for drugs on SR2.0, so it would be very easy to prove that charge at the very least. And as we've seen in the past, Federal prosecutors tend to be very inventive, and the law tends to be rather expansive for these types of things, it wouldn't surprise me at all if there are other charges that would be possible.
      - Estragon 12y ago
        > if you know (or reasonably should know) that a crime is > being committed and then don't report it, now you're an > accomplice to the crime. It seems as though this depends on the state you're living in and the seriousness of the crime. I'd like to know what the relevant laws are (if any) in Ohio and New York.
- LordKano 12y ago
  Agreed, it sounds more like criminal facilitation than conspiracy. IANAL but I am well read. If I understand correctly, conspiracy requires an intent to break the law. If you do something with the knowledge that someone might be breaking the law but you have no specific knowledge, it's going to be very difficult to make a case for conspiracy. Facilitation is pretty much a given.
  - owenmarshall 12y ago
    > If you do something with the knowledge that someone might be breaking the law but you have no specific knowledge, it's going to be very difficult to make a case for conspiracy. That's not correct. The conscious avoidance doctrine basically says that you aren't allowed to be an ostrich: deliberately taking steps to shield yourself from knowing about a crime leaves you as liable as having knowledge of the crime. Additionally, you don't need to know a specific act: just knowing that the site was designed to facilitate drug transactions is enough. This would be easy to prove. Check the code - if Benthall created the categories, which included drugs, he's entered into the conspiracy.
    - msandford 12y ago
      What if it's used to sell drugs from someone to someone else inside a country where both buying and selling drugs is legal? I know that's a stretch, but hell, we're legalizing drugs all across our own country as we speak. In another election cycle or two the feds might well be fighting the states in every state.
      - owenmarshall 12y ago
        You would almost certainly be guilty of engaging in a transaction derived from unlawful activity (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1957 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1957) I've pinged an old friend who is an AUSA for some legal clarification if the transaction was strictly legal in the jurisdiction, but I'm pretty sure that's the case.

msandford 12y ago

Conspiracy to traffic? Doesn't seem like it. Is it something that makes trafficking easier? Sure. But who did the trafficking? The seller and the buyer. Wire fraud? If it's the sale of something illegal I don't think that suddenly makes it wire fraud. Further, he's not charged with that. The sale is still completed. It's an illegal sale, but not fraud. Fraud would be if someone said they were going to sell you cocaine and instead shipped you powdered sugar.

at-fates-hands 12y ago
>> Conspiracy to traffic? Just in case you didn't know: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_%28criminal%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_%28criminal%29 Conspiracy law usually does not require proof of specific intent by the defendants to injure any specific person to establish an illegal agreement. Instead, usually the law requires only that the conspirators have agreed to engage in a certain illegal act. Clearly, there was an agreement set forth. The owner of SR2.0 took money in exchange for people selling their goods and services on his site. If the site had some kind of terms of the agreement, which sellers had to ok, then he's screwed. >> Wire fraud? http://definitions.uslegal.com/w/wire-fraud/ http://definitions.uslegal.com/w/wire-fraud/ The essential element to be proved is that the person knowingly and willfully devised or intended to devise a scheme to defraud; and that the use of the interstate wire communications facilities was closely related to the scheme because the person either wired something or caused it to be wired in interstate commerce in an attempt to execute or carry out the scheme. This means he knew what he was doing was illegal and the use of the internet to essentially launder his money is what they're going after. Not the sale of the narcotics, but the transfer of money for ill gotten gains, which defrauded the US Government of tax revenue.
Estragon 12y ago
"Conspiracy has been defined in the United States as an agreement of two or more people to commit a crime, or to accomplish a legal end through illegal actions." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(criminal)#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(criminal)#United_St... Thus it's conspiracy if you are party to an agreement which involves you receiving a bitcoin commission (legal end) as a result of the trafficking of drugs (illegal action.) If they're charging wire fraud, I think that may be part two of the complaint, "Conspiracy to Commit and Aid and Abet Computer Hacking." Probably people were using the site to sell hacking services or hacking tools which could be used to defraud people. https://pdf.yt/d/RpyX9_xmapTkhmkb https://pdf.yt/d/RpyX9_xmapTkhmkb
- NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
  What if you don't take a cut of the transaction? If there's some flat fee that people pay regardless of whether there is an illegal drug transaction, is that then a conspiracy?
  - mpyne 12y ago
    Perhaps not, but if you know (or reasonably should know) that a crime is being committed and then don't report it, now you're an accomplice to the crime. It's hard to miss all the ads for drugs on SR2.0, so it would be very easy to prove that charge at the very least. And as we've seen in the past, Federal prosecutors tend to be very inventive, and the law tends to be rather expansive for these types of things, it wouldn't surprise me at all if there are other charges that would be possible.
    - Estragon 12y ago
      > if you know (or reasonably should know) that a crime is > being committed and then don't report it, now you're an > accomplice to the crime. It seems as though this depends on the state you're living in and the seriousness of the crime. I'd like to know what the relevant laws are (if any) in Ohio and New York.
LordKano 12y ago
Agreed, it sounds more like criminal facilitation than conspiracy. IANAL but I am well read. If I understand correctly, conspiracy requires an intent to break the law. If you do something with the knowledge that someone might be breaking the law but you have no specific knowledge, it's going to be very difficult to make a case for conspiracy. Facilitation is pretty much a given.
- owenmarshall 12y ago
  > If you do something with the knowledge that someone might be breaking the law but you have no specific knowledge, it's going to be very difficult to make a case for conspiracy. That's not correct. The conscious avoidance doctrine basically says that you aren't allowed to be an ostrich: deliberately taking steps to shield yourself from knowing about a crime leaves you as liable as having knowledge of the crime. Additionally, you don't need to know a specific act: just knowing that the site was designed to facilitate drug transactions is enough. This would be easy to prove. Check the code - if Benthall created the categories, which included drugs, he's entered into the conspiracy.
  - msandford 12y ago
    What if it's used to sell drugs from someone to someone else inside a country where both buying and selling drugs is legal? I know that's a stretch, but hell, we're legalizing drugs all across our own country as we speak. In another election cycle or two the feds might well be fighting the states in every state.
    - owenmarshall 12y ago
      You would almost certainly be guilty of engaging in a transaction derived from unlawful activity (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1957 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1957) I've pinged an old friend who is an AUSA for some legal clarification if the transaction was strictly legal in the jurisdiction, but I'm pretty sure that's the case.