3 ms·
> 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 ca
by 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 agoWhat 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 agoYou 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.