4 ms·

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

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.

4 ms·

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

by LordKano 12y ago

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.