[HN Gopher] Putin signs law to seize funds of officials that exc...
___________________________________________________________________
Putin signs law to seize funds of officials that exceed declared
income by $100
Author : awb
Score : 177 points
Date : 2022-03-06 16:05 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (then24.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (then24.com)
| MrDisposable wrote:
| This is a message to mid-level bureaucrats: stay loyal and don't
| get any ideas, or else we'll look into your spending history.
| Ourgon wrote:
| Putin is among the richest people in the world with an estimated
| worth of ~200 billion USD. His salary is half than that of the
| Swedish PM so if this law takes power they'll have to arrest him.
| trhway wrote:
| As Russian joke these days goes "Russia is going to be the
| Northern-most of all the Northern Koreas of the world". It took
| Putin 22 years yet we're here. Last time a KGB guy ran the
| country - Andropov - it also was tremendous tightening of the
| screws to the point of total breaking of things and thus resulted
| in "perestroyka" and all what followed it.
|
| Russian officials store huge amount of cash out of banks, so that
| new law is really just to be used selectively to punish, not to
| really fight corruption (naturally no surprise here). It is like
| in USSR - one just couldn't have any large bank account back
| then, and so all those Party bosses, municipal leaders, police
| officers, factory directors, etc. had piles of cash and jewelry
| at homes.
| foverzar wrote:
| > As Russian joke these days goes "Russia is going to be the
| Northern-most of all the Northern Koreas of the world".
|
| Is there actually such a joke? Seems like there isn't.
| trhway wrote:
| Man, I wish I could produce such jokes myself :) anekdot.ru
| is the last stand of sanity there.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| I recall a case few years ago in Moscow, where they found cca
| 100 millions $ in flat of some low bureaucrat. Everybody was
| surprised how on his low position he could amass so much.
|
| So yeah, what seems to be happening rapidly now is Russia
| abandoning last bits of democracy and going full dictatorship
| quickly. To block any dissent in its beginning by possibility
| of state terror. Not sure if it will work in 2022, for sure
| hoping it won't.
| sega_sai wrote:
| He was not just a bureaucrat, he was a colonel of the police
| https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0%D1%85%D0%B0%D1%80.
| .. and he was part of the unit fighting corruption ))
| toyg wrote:
| _> It is like in USSR_
|
| Except this time it doesn't have even _the pretense_ of working
| for the common good. Putin has funded the worst sort of racists
| across Europe for decades.
| trhway wrote:
| They supported dictators.
|
| Another back to USSR thing -with Western condom brands
| pulling out of Russia it is going to be only low quality
| domestic rubber like back then.
| dukeofdoom wrote:
| martythemaniak wrote:
| This is an incredibly misinformation-dense post.
|
| Accounts were not seized. People who donated over 50 were not
| targeted. There was no bank run. There was little blowback.
| Protest rights were not suspended. The emergencies act
| invocation was passed by parliament and always has a built in
| expiry.
| dukeofdoom wrote:
| Sorry but you're either misinformed or trying to memory hole
| this events.
|
| > Accounts were not seized.
|
| 1. "Banks have started to freeze accounts linked to Ottawa
| protests, federal government says" CBC - Governments own
| funded mouth.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=me-erNZ31z8
|
| 2. Whose bank accounts can be frozen through the Emergencies
| Act?
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c84oLt8n-GM
|
| 3. The bank accounts of the main organizers are still seized.
| Tamara Lich and Pat King are frozen as well as others.
|
| > Protest rights were not suspended.
|
| Yes they were! The government gave themselves the right to
| decide where people could protest. They also charged
| protestors on horses and assaulted others. And blocked off
| the area near parliament. Going to so far even now, as to
| tell people they can't fly the FCK Trudeau flag.
|
| Trampling https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50mAT12ZpJM
|
| Police kicking a protestor and breaking his ribs
|
| https://rumble.com/vvmpxi-ottawa-police-arrest-and-
| violently...
|
| > The emergencies act invocation was passed by parliament
|
| It needed to pass by the Senate as well, which it never did.
| Since it was likely to fail. He cancelled it. I personally
| took out a large amount of money from the bank and I know
| others as well.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Seizure means you don't get your money back. Freezing means
| you don't get to touch it right now. There are no credible
| reports of Canadians' bank balances being seized.
| martythemaniak wrote:
| If you can't even understand the difference between "seize"
| and "freeze", you should consider not having an opinion on
| this matter.
| dukeofdoom wrote:
| If a government indefinitely "freezes" your bank account,
| the only practical difference from "seizing" is
| semantics. Just like you can protest freely, as long as
| you don't mind getting trampled by a horse or your ribs
| broken. If you can't win with facts, argue semantics and
| the definitions of words. I've heard it many times on Sam
| Harris podcast. So who's trying to misinform?
| martythemaniak wrote:
| All such actions under the emergencies act are subject to
| court review and due process. There's no such thing as
| infinitely freezing accounts at the whim of the PM.
|
| You can protest freely. You can't break any law you
| choose to, call it "protest" and expect not to suffer any
| consequences.
|
| Nobody was trampled by a horse.
|
| If you're Canadian, spend less time listening to Sam
| Harris and more time learning about your own country. If
| you're not, please go back to ignoring us and everything
| that happens in our country, as you most likely did
| before.
| dukeofdoom wrote:
| Trudeau was going to lose in the Senate so he withdrew
| the Emergency Act. The legality of him even calling it is
| getting challenged in court.
|
| Dictates and Edicts are for Kings. The Truckers were
| protesting two years of emergency measures, and the
| government double downed and passed more emergency
| measures, and ultimately used violence to quash their
| protest. If you think this is how democracy should
| function in Canada, than I think you should take your own
| advice and learn more about your "Country".
|
| > You can protest freely.
|
| I have no idea with what definition of "freely" is in
| your head. Does not being allowed to fly a FCK Trudeau
| flag still constitute "freely" ?
| https://twitter.com/i/status/1500153323495866372
|
| >Nobody was trampled by a horse.
|
| This elderly woman was knocked down by a horse and was
| taken to the hospital due to her injuries. Now again. I'm
| not sure what constitutes a "trampling" in your
| definition of "trampling", but I think most people would
| be okay with calling it a trampling.
|
| Video here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50mAT12ZpJM
| newsbinator wrote:
| So much of what you said was false and "not even wrong"
| that now, when you're saying some things that are true,
| people are downvoting you as a crazy crank.
| dennis_jeeves1 wrote:
| Wrong on nearly everything you said, based on what I know.
| Can largely attest to everything dukeofdoom said. You are
| most likely relying on mainstream news only.
| upsidesinclude wrote:
| You can't call his post "misinformation-dense"
|
| Then lead with "Accounts were not siezed", as it's a matter
| of fact.
|
| Yours is certainly a worse type of misinformation.
|
| And appalling to see the comments below, begging for
| censorship.
| alphabettsy wrote:
| Check out the comment history. It's a lot of misinformation.
| mrlonglong wrote:
| Maybe ask dang to check him out and take action if needed?
| Lascaille wrote:
| Maybe go be a fascist somewhere else?
| mrlonglong wrote:
| Maybe stop spreading misinformation.
| Lascaille wrote:
| Having an opinion - which you can justify vaguely
| logically - about subjective matters and sharing it isn't
| 'spreading misinformation.'
|
| There's a very toxic current of censorship spreading
| which involves redefining opinions (inherently a
| subjective matter) as information (inherently an
| objective matter) in order to justify them being censored
| on the grounds of 'combating misinformation.' People are
| free to be wrong and to spread the word of their
| wrongness.
|
| If you take the random words - on a subjective topic! -
| of a weirdo on the internet to be 'information' then
| you're a bloody idiot.
| Lascaille wrote:
| >It's a lot of misinformation.
|
| It's only 'misinformation' if you take the words of random
| people on the internet as being 'information' instead of
| 'opinion.'
|
| As that's a very foolish thing to do I think it's better to
| call their content 'ignorance' rather than 'misinformation'
| as that accords it a type of status it doesn't deserve.
|
| With that in mind, do you propose that the ignorant should
| be silenced?
| dukeofdoom wrote:
| I posted links to what I claimed below.
| foverzar wrote:
| How is this even related?
| dukeofdoom wrote:
| Its a government policy that is likely to cause people to
| withdraw their money from Banks and turn to cash. Exactly
| what happened in Canada.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| dude, Putin doesn't need to get inspiration from some
| insignificant country (for russians) that has some little
| squabble with few truckers, they have tons of experience on
| how to run state terror back home
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| Ironically, canadian banks are absolutely fine, while
| russian banks are already suffering from a run. The max
| withdrawal, last I checked, in russia, was $20 from an ATM.
| spacedcowboy wrote:
| To be fair, that $100 is now a _lot_ of rubles...
| pelasaco wrote:
| to be precise 11k RUB.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| Regardless, the buying power of those $100 is still the same in
| Russia. Only the citizens who only have rubles have lost
| massive buying power due to hyper inflation.
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| Inflation in Russia has been greater than 50% per month in
| the last year?
| veganhouseDJ wrote:
| The ruble has lost about that vs USD since Feb 21/22nd and
| that is with a crazy 10% emergency rate hike between then
| and now to defend the ruble.
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| I probably have something to learn here when I ask,
| exchange rates are being used to infer Russian inflation
| a la https://www.economicsdiscussion.net/exchange-
| rate/nominal-an... because Russian cpi/wpi numbers are
| not available/trustworthy on the short timescales we're
| dealing with here?
| umanwizard wrote:
| Not necessarily, since things sold in Russia aren't
| denominated in USD. The ruble losing X against USD doesn't
| automatically mean that everything becomes higher priced by X
| immediately (except for imported goods).
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| _> since things sold in Russia aren't denominated in USD._
|
| Most important assets are. Valuable assets like real estate
| and sometimes cars is mostly denominated in USD and
| sometimes EUR, as the Rubble is too weak and volatile for
| the general population to bother with it for valuable
| assets. It's the same in Romania, cars and real estate are
| denominated in EUR despite nearly everyone in the country
| being paid in the national currency RON, and, before the
| creation of the EUR, they were denominated in USD or
| Deutsch Marks as the national currency was fluctuating like
| BTC.
|
| _> The ruble losing X against USD doesn't automatically
| mean that everything becomes higher priced by X immediately
| (except for imported goods)_
|
| It does, since Russia doesn't really manufacture any high
| value goods that are in demand on the free market, so it
| has to import nearly everything apart from basic food,
| fuels and raw materials.
|
| I'm sure Russia can survive just fine without Dutch cheese,
| US bourbon, Italian designer clothes and French wine
| imports due to sanctions, but US CPUs, GPUs, iPhones and
| MacBooks, German car parts and industrial equipment,
| Swedish trucks, Liechtensteinian dental drills, French
| Airbuses and Japanese cameras, industrial robots, cutting
| edge sensors and chips still cost the same amount in USD,
| EUR and YEN to make but now 2x the price in RUB to import
| due to the devaluation and Russia needs to import all those
| things to not go back to the stone age, as they don't
| manufacture any equivalent domestic alternatives.
| twelve40 wrote:
| > Valuable assets like real estate and sometimes cars is
| mostly denominated in USD and sometimes EUR
|
| More made-up BS. Go to cian.ru, avito.ru or any other
| real estate or car dealership website, right now, and all
| you see is rubles. It's been like that for over a decade
| now. Why would you just make stuff up? Maybe because the
| last time you were in the country was 00's or never?
| nannal wrote:
| > Nvidia GPUs, Intel CPUs, MacBooks, Mercedes cars,
| dental drills, Nikon camera and Airbus plane still cost
| the same amount in USD
|
| Not that most of those matter because they aren't being
| sold to Russians now anyway.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| Why wouldn't they matter? Don't Russian citizens and
| businesses need stuff like computing, cars, planes,
| dental drills and imaging equipment to live and be
| productive?
|
| As another argument, the RUB prices of MacBooks and
| iPhones shot up +50% the day after the sanctions were
| implemented. The second hand market and scalping of these
| goods also exploded in Russia.
|
| And when you run out of dental drill bits, how will that
| not matter when you visit your dentist? Do you want him
| to work with a chisel and a hammer?
|
| The average Russian will be hit hard from these sanctions
| as time goes on.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Why wouldn 't they matter?_
|
| I think the comment meant that it doesn't matter to
| domestic inflation because sanctioned goods can't be
| purchased. The latter part of which is true. The former,
| not--supply shocks can cause inflation as easily as money
| printing.
| vmception wrote:
| new ones aren't
|
| its a gigantic country ya know
| newsbinator wrote:
| Not really. For a civil servant, it was a fraction of a month's
| salary before and it's a fraction of a month's salary today.
|
| That fraction is double-ish what it was, but it's still merely
| a chunk or two of an average person's _monthly_ salary (i.e. it
| 's trivially easy for anyone at all to get caught in this net).
| dehrmann wrote:
| As much as it's tumbled, it would have been more like $150 a
| few months ago. We're not talking Bolivars, here.
| NoPie wrote:
| $100 even in roubles now is very low amount for high level
| functionaries. This law could be used to get rid of undesirable
| people because you can selectively apply to practically anyone.
| netsharc wrote:
| I was wondering if Putin wanted to make enemies out of his
| apparatchiks, but you're right, it's to keep them quiet and
| subservient. Similar to China's anti-corruption laws, where
| only the undesirables get investigated and even punished with
| death.
|
| As a bonus maybe the uninformed Russians will now think Putin
| is cleaning up government, the corrupt middle layer that's
| ruining his mission to make Russia great again...
| iso1210 wrote:
| Median savings account in the US is less than 1/10th of a years
| salary. Normal people would not be impacted by a law like this
| bombcar wrote:
| Now we can add to the bad idea train "send $150 to random bank
| accounts in Russia".
| bencollier49 wrote:
| Missed your chance there, I think.
| t0mas88 wrote:
| It just got cheaper... It's something like $ 100 now.
| wereHamster wrote:
| Still possible, just have to do it via China.
| bencollier49 wrote:
| Indeed, I guess if you've got a Union Pay card, or
| whatever it's called.
| punk_ihaq wrote:
| Does Putin himself come under the purview of this law? He's
| alleged to have a palace worth 100 million rubles on the Black
| Sea coast.
| viktorcode wrote:
| You severely underestimate the cost of the palace. It's in
| ballpark of a billion USD.
| MrDisposable wrote:
| Even if he does, who will enforce that?
| Fatnino wrote:
| It's declared so it's all ok
| tuukkah wrote:
| It's not under his name so it's all ok.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > Does Putin himself come under the purview of this law? He's
| alleged to have a palace worth 100 million rubles on the Black
| Sea coast.
|
| Of course not. Anti-corruption measures in places like that are
| selectively enforced. Go after the little fish to score anti-
| corruption points, while the big fish are literally above the
| law.
| tuwtuwtuwtuw wrote:
| > while the big fish are literally above the law.
|
| Which law?
| kergonath wrote:
| Silly you, of course he does not. You know, some animals are
| more equal than others.
| popilewiz wrote:
| HWR_14 wrote:
| > He's alleged to have a palace worth 100 million rubles on the
| Black Sea coast.
|
| That wouldn't be in a bank account, so he's safe. It's only
| following cash into/out of the banking system
| Hamuko wrote:
| I think Putin's watch collection is estimated to be worth
| around 700,000 dollars, which is quite a lot more than his
| annual wage of around 120,000 dollars (well, his salary is
| probably worth a lot less in dollars now).
| ok123456 wrote:
| Is this going to apply to his watch collection?
| pelasaco wrote:
| Yes, interesting. How could an official and public servant
| become one of the richest man in the World just with his
| salary, right?
| ithkuil wrote:
| No it's only bank account. The solution is clearly to buy
| watches like the Hublot Putin has
| sega_sai wrote:
| It is absolutely clear what is going on. The economic situation
| is going to be extremely dire very-very soon. I.e. the USD/RUB
| exchange rate fell by 50% and likely will fall much more. They
| already introduced limits how much you can buy in grocery stores
| (sugar etc.), so they'll need additional enemies to blame other
| than the West, Ukraine, nazis etc. The selected corrupt officials
| are a good target, since there are plenty of them. Obviously only
| those identified to be not loyal enough will be selected.
|
| The exact text of the law and numbers does not really matter
| here, as there is no real independent court/justice or any kind
| of rule of law.
| throwthere wrote:
| Title is completely wrong. It's actually:
|
| [sum of family's last 3 years income] + 10,000 rubles > [sum of
| family's account balances].
|
| > the bank accounts of civil servants, as well as members of
| their families, including minor children, will be checked by the
| prosecutor's office. If it turns out that the proceeds from them
| exceed the total income of the official and his relatives for
| three years by more than 10,000 rubles, a lawsuit will be filed
| with the court for the forced withdrawal of these funds to the
| budget.
| awb wrote:
| Sorry, I had to take some liberties given the title character
| restraints, but the details are in the article.
| ab35 wrote:
| First of all, it is about deposits to accounts [sum of family's
| last 3 years income] + 10,000 rubles > [sum of family's
| deposits to all accounts for the year of control].
|
| Then, the law states that prosecutor's office should requests
| the explanations about the source of deposits from an official.
| Only if the explanations are not provided, the funds could be
| seized.
|
| http://publication.pravo.gov.ru/Document/View/00012022030600...
| Article 8.2.1
| callmeal wrote:
| >[sum of family's last 3 years income] + 10,000 rubles > [sum
| of family's account balances].
|
| Wowow that is crazy. Anyone who was disciplined about
| saving/investing and has been doing so for > 5 years will
| easily meet that criteria!
| Volundr wrote:
| Assuming this is anything like the US, capital gains and
| interest both count as income. Your (probably) not in trouble
| here simply for being a savvy investor.
|
| Obviously, INAL and definitely not a Russian Lawyer.
| derefr wrote:
| You missed the key point: it's _lifetime-to-date_ net worth
| (heuristic: current bank account balances) vs. _recent_
| income.
|
| As in, if you make X per year; and you have >3X in savings
| from Y>3 years of spending (a lot) less than you make and
| stuffing the difference under a mattress, then all your
| savings in excess of 3X get confiscated.
|
| In other words, similar to people on welfare in America,
| public servants in Russia are now not allowed to _retain_
| assets in excess of a certain limit proportional to their
| income--even when that income all came _directly_ from
| their (government) job.
|
| This is analogous to a progressive wealth tax, but not the
| same; as a wealth tax still allows disproportionate wealth
| growth for the highest-income earners; while the goal of
| this measure is to leave you with at most _exactly_ three
| years of however-much you're currently making, and nothing
| more, no matter what your assets looked like before that.
|
| The key "feature" to observe about this approach, IMHO, is
| that under this system people who are close to the savings
| cap already, are incentivized to spend every ruble they
| make, as any extra "left over" come audit time will be
| taken away. (It's a bit like the game-theoretic
| consequences of yearly-limit insurance coverage, actually!)
| cultofmetatron wrote:
| my first thought was "maybe they'll buy into gold or
| bitcoin" but then who's going to be accepting rubles for
| gold or bitcoin at this point. The Ruble is essentially
| worthless now.
| __s wrote:
| Try to evaluate the rule with some reasonableness. There's
| likely a mechanism to report interest as income, or the
| balance of investments would be based on deposits & not
| effective worth
| nojonestownpls wrote:
| Bootvis wrote:
| Confiscating money if people have too much according to
| some weird heuristic is inherently unreasonable.
| geysersam wrote:
| It's a tool to investigate and deincentivize corruption.
| Not some state income tax.
| grey-area wrote:
| Putin is the most corrupt individual on earth who has
| stolen billions from his country and runs a mafia state.
| this law is not to 'deincentivize corruption', but I
| guess it might help stave off state bankruptcy for
| another week.
| throwaway89219 wrote:
| 411111111111111 wrote:
| Not necessarily, it depends as always.
|
| Heavily penalizing accumulation of cash like that _could_
| be reasonable, but doing it without announcing it at
| least a year forward makes it hard to argue that it 's
| anything but a cashgrap.
|
| But the idea issue is viable if the explicit goal is to
| make high cash reserves impossible. People would instead
| have to invest and various accounts (I.e. pension plans
| etc) have to be exempt. So it's theoretically reasonable
| if the economy is suffering because the wealth is never
| being spen, but that sounds like a very unlikely
| situation to occur in today's consumption society.
| pl0x wrote:
| AniseAbyss wrote:
| Punishment for using a Russian bank and not offshoring your
| assets... What is next building a wall to keep people from
| "voting with their feet"?
| bombcar wrote:
| Isn't it more "sum of income" > "sum of inflows"?
|
| It seems something relatively easy to check and relatively easy
| to bypass for those intending to do so.
| RivieraKid wrote:
| This whole situation is kind of scary and depressing, big country
| with nukes and an increasingly unhinged dictator with a strong
| hold on power. The only possible way out is Putin dying, but he
| can easily have 10 to 20 more years, which is a long time for him
| to do more harm.
| trhway wrote:
| Accidental slip with regional powers splitting instead of
| fighting to lead the corpse of Russia. Like Chechnya which is
| there only until Putin sends huge money there, and there is no
| more money. Or Far East falling in gravitational pull of China
| without money and power from Moscow.
| uerobert wrote:
| Who gets to keep the nukes?
| trhway wrote:
| If world plays the cards right this time - nobody.
| dehrmann wrote:
| So this is basically a blank check for the government to take
| funds from any civil servant it wants?
| ineedasername wrote:
| _> wants_
|
| "Isn't sufficiently loyal" may be more accurate.
| wereHamster wrote:
| The US has it too, it's called <<civil forfeiture>>!
| jkepler wrote:
| Civil asset forfeiture. Reason.com (a libertarian magazine in
| the USA) has been reporting on this massive challenge to
| private property rights in the US for over 40 years:
| https://reason.com/tag/civil-asset-forfeiture/
| rad_gruchalski wrote:
| Searching for those who steal from kleptocrats?
| throwuxiytayq wrote:
| Is this a sign of internal conflict? I don't think Putin would
| right now bother with signing law that isn't absolutely necessary
| for putting out _some_ kind of fire.
| Tagbert wrote:
| Probably a preemptive move to remind those in the government
| that they are vulnerable and, should they raise their voice
| about Putin's activities, they can be swatted down with this
| law.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| Also, to lower the cost of sanctions on them. If they start
| rumbling about losing money outside Russia, Putin can just
| take everything in Russia or not. And if sanctions get
| removed, that still can happen.
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| Just spitballing here, but it's probably a two fold thing:
|
| 1. create a law that would probably be popular with most
| average people because it is anti-corruption on its face, and
|
| 2. allow the government to legally go after virtually any
| public servant in a selective manner to crack down on
| dissension
| ordu wrote:
| Judging by a description, it is a law to imprison any official.
| Seems that they are going to a gulag now. Putin took all the
| power, he needs his followers no more. Stalin also did this.
|
| Those who do not fear the darkness will be consumed by it.
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| I was assuming it was just populist nonsense to buy some cheap
| support. He also passed a law about stronger pedophile
| sentencing.
|
| This seems a much stronger signal that the war is going poorly
| for them than that supposed FSB leak.
|
| But combining the two, he may need to take out some rivals who
| perceive him as weak and that it's time for them to make their
| move, and those people seem likely to have big bank accounts.
| danuker wrote:
| One man can not rule a nation by himself. When his followers
| are scared or worried enough, they might attempt mutiny.
| agumonkey wrote:
| One thing that I don't understand about military structures
| is that putin is not holding every gun on the ground. All
| these orders are carried by officers of various ranks, these
| should be the one to target in order to stop this crisis.
| adventured wrote:
| People on the inside perform an internal battle: between
| knowing that they are part of the evil deeds (war crimes,
| trials, executions after), being afraid of being
| murdered/purged by the regime in the meantime, and if it
| gets bad enough the balance tilts more toward being time to
| mutiny and get rid of the dictator before he kills us all.
| A lot of things have to line up to get enough of the
| apparatus together to remove someone like Putin.
|
| Early into the Stalinification process, Putin's insiders
| will not turn on him, even when he starts to purge them.
| They'll hold out, hopeful that they're not next, scared,
| afraid to move; they'll tell themselves that they won't be
| next because they have been loyal, various
| rationalizations. You can target these insiders, it doesn't
| matter, they will not turn on him at this stage. A lot of
| people will have to die before we arrive at that juncture.
|
| Putin's greatest single vulnerability is the FSB, they
| coup'd the Russian democracy (such that it was, being so
| embryonic) and installed him, they're among the best
| positioned to remove him. The question is, why should they.
| He's one of their own. The oligarchs could perhaps try
| purchasing his removal in conspiracy with the military or
| FSB, although it's very unlikely. The military can't be
| happy with its humiliation in Ukraine and the masses of
| dead soldiers, which will ultimately be for naught (Putin
| forced this outcome on them); and I would expect Putin to
| punish some prominent military leaders for the various
| failures, which never goes over well with the system
| broadly.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| There was an offer of 1 million USD to anyone who kills
| him from some rich russian guy in UK.
|
| I have a better idea - 1 billion USD + safe extraction
| from Russia to any place including closest ones + ie
| immediate US citizenship. This sum is nothing for the
| likes of Biden, Johnson (or Musk) and nothing compared to
| damage this war is doing _every day_ .
|
| There is no way that nobody he meets within next few
| months wouldn't turn for this, even a group of 10 guys
| would be OK for rest of their grandchildren's lives. The
| trick is to do it somehow unofficially, otherwise you are
| next on FSB hit list, probably with every member of
| family. It would make him extremely isolated, paranoid,
| and actually make mistakes and enemies deep inside his
| pyramid. Play his game by his rules, not this posh
| western endless talks and diplomacy which he ignores.
| dgellow wrote:
| Quite sure that would be seen as an act of war from the
| US. And whoever replace Putin is likely to be as bad as
| him (or at least share the same fascist ideology) and
| would have control over the nukes.
| dennis_jeeves1 wrote:
| Thanks, that's a great analysis how politics works in
| almost every group. The take is that if one wants a clean
| system once cannot give any powers to the govt, including
| the ability to tax, it's a slippery slope.
| agumonkey wrote:
| I didn't mean to morally pin the war on the intermediate
| military officers. But to bribe them in any way possible
| to run away, sabotage, slow down, isolate their batallion
| whatever..
| jhgorrell wrote:
| For those who would like to read more about staying in
| power as a dictator, or for that matter any kind of
| political leader, I found "The Dictator's Handbook: Why
| Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics" [1] a good
| read on the topic.
|
| Of note is the required number of supporters can be quite
| low when you have a government supported by resource
| extraction.
|
| [1] https://www.amazon.ca/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-
| Almost-Pol...
| lumost wrote:
| Historically regimes that provide lavish rewards and extreme
| punishments are frighteningly stable until acted upon by an
| outside force. See Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Bathist Iraq
| etc.
| toyg wrote:
| One thing I said to friends while talking about Ukraine, is
| that Russia has always experienced revolutions _while engaged
| in external conflict_. In some cases it literally started
| from the troops.
|
| Putin has thrown a dice, but he might get to rue the results.
| foverzar wrote:
| Was there something mentioned about imprisonment?
| david12345 wrote:
| Mikhail Saltykov-Shchedrin: "the severity of Russian laws is
| alleviated by the lack of obligation to fulfil them"
| dntrkv wrote:
| They're just slowly building up enough of these laws so that
| when the time comes, they can enforce them selectively. Old
| Soviet tactic.
| [deleted]
| sAbakumoff wrote:
| It's usual BS that they do to keep their polling numbers. In
| addition, it's a tool to keep those officials loyal to Putin's
| regime. It's fragile, it barely holds. The coup is near.
| option wrote:
| Like any other law in Russia this would apply selectively to
| those who are against him
| rzwitserloot wrote:
| I'm confused. Either this is:
|
| [A] You may not save more money in your bank account(s) than 3 *
| current yearly salary+10k rubles. If your bank account balance is
| higher, the burden of proof is reversed and you need to prove
| that you earned it properly.
|
| [B] The amount of incoming cash over some unknown period of time,
| if higher than 3 * salary+10k rubles, means that every cent above
| that boundary gets confiscated unless you can prove you earned
| it.
|
| For [B], that unknown period of time is rather incredibly
| important. If it's 'one year' that means this law effectively
| says: "If you corrupt and crime your way into more money,
| allright, but, cap yourself at a 2:1 illegal-legal rate; any more
| than that and the burden of proof reverses and we'll just take
| the remainder. If it's 3 years though, then this says: Any money
| you make outside of your salary is capped at ~EUR50 a year (not
| 50 thousand, fifty). Any more and we just take it.
|
| For [A], hoo boy, that seems like a crazy or desperate move:
| Steal from those who saved. That really creates a YOLO culture
| where you just spend every cent you earn immediately, never
| building anything up because it'll just be taken. That, and
| everybody will be buying a spacious mattress IMMEDIATELY and will
| continue to use that as their personal bank for a very very long
| time.
|
| Separately, the 10k rubles rider seems crazy. 10k rubles is, even
| before the ruble's collapse, something like EUR/$ 150,-. Even in
| Russia where yearly salaries are considerably lower than e.g.
| western europe or the US, EUR150,- is a rounding error compared
| to even a low yearly salary, right?
|
| Anyone have more details? It sounds like perhaps it's B, over a
| year, so this just caps corruption at 2:1. Whilst I'm sure
| that'll have quite an effect on russian society, it's not going
| to significantly affect anybody other than apparatchicks.
| [deleted]
| anothernewdude wrote:
| Is there any reason at all that this wouldn't immediately cause a
| run on the banks?
| onion2k wrote:
| I'd wager this is a law that means Putin's regime is 'legally'
| able to remove officials he doesn't like due to 'corruption'.
| People who toe the party line and pander to their bosses won't be
| looked at. Everyone else goes to prison. It's cementing his power
| in a time when a lot of officials are likely considering whether
| he's really the best leader to have in power right now.
| MrDisposable wrote:
| This exactly.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Putin 's regime is 'legally' able to remove officials he
| doesn't like due to 'corruption'_
|
| This has been true since 2003 [1].
|
| [1]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Khodorkovsky#Criminal_...
| MrDisposable wrote:
| Yes, but now he can apply the same principle to literally
| every bureaucrat, with minimal effort.
| CodeWriter23 wrote:
| Seems like it will stop some corruption and force some corrupt
| officials to use the "stuffed mattress" as a bank technique.
| ineedasername wrote:
| It will only stop corruption if it is enforced against corrupt
| officials instead of just those who aren't sufficiently loyal
| to the party line.
| IYasha wrote:
| And that's why governments all aroud the worlds are drooling
| over national cryptos. Push button to confiscate.
| doctor_eval wrote:
| They don't need crypto to do that. They can garnish your bank
| accounts already.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| A stuffed mattress would be wise for those in the west too.
| After witnessing the freezing of accounts in Canada, I am
| making sure to have enough physical cash on hand to pay my
| mortgage, feed my family, and travel if need be.
|
| History is full of examples where physical assets are
| essential. My wife's family had to flee China after their
| assets were frozen. Ukrainian and Russians today need to flee
| and have their assets frozen by their respective governments.
| epiphanitus wrote:
| The source of this article seems kind of dodgy.
|
| - I haven't found a credible source corroborating the claim made
| in this article.
|
| - Their FB page has surprisingly little traffic for a news site
| and their twitter account was suspended recently.
|
| https://www.facebook.com/then24dotcom/
| https://twitter.com/then24dotcom
|
| - Their contact email is...not one you would expect for a
| legitimate news site (celebsbabe @ $major_mail_provider).
|
| Edit: formatting
| awb wrote:
| Here's a US mainstream source:
|
| https://finance.yahoo.com/news/putin-signs-law-seize-illegal...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-03-06 23:02 UTC)