[HN Gopher] Judge acquits Backpage co-founder Michael Lacey on m...
___________________________________________________________________
Judge acquits Backpage co-founder Michael Lacey on most counts
Author : perihelions
Score : 88 points
Date : 2024-04-25 20:14 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (reason.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (reason.com)
| nadermx wrote:
| "And on June 17, Lacey is scheduled to be sentenced on the one
| count--international concealment of money laundering--on which
| the jury found him guilty. It comes with a possible sentence of
| up to 20 years in federal prison. Lacey plans to appeal his
| conviction on this count, and there seems like a good chance it
| will be successful, since the money he allegedly "concealed" was
| reported to the federal government with all the proper paperwork.
| But he could still face prison time as that appeals process plays
| out."
|
| How was he found guilty of concealed money when he reported it to
| begin with? Then could still serve prison time for it.
| beaeglebeachh wrote:
| And how is it money laundering if it turned out the money
| wasn't proceeds of crime.
| brookst wrote:
| I spent a few minutes trying to figure that out, but Reason
| is incredibly slanted, they just link to some even nuttier
| site, and even starting with news I couldn't find specifics
| of the one count he was convicted on.
|
| But I'd be a little skeptical of Reason's handwave "properly
| reported to the government". Reported on taxes? To SEC? As
| part of disclosure for this trial?
|
| One way it could be money laundering without being proceeds
| of a crime is if he took $1M from Pablo Escobar for a huge
| advertising commit and then refunded $900k to Able Paleo
| Bars, LLC for unused ad spend.
| dmurray wrote:
| You could receive money legitimately (let's say, donations to
| your synagogue) and funnel it to politically disfavoured
| causes (for example, anti-war protesters in the Middle East).
|
| It doesn't fit the metaphor of money laundering, of turning
| dirty money into clean, but it's usually prosecuted under the
| same statutes.
| petertodd wrote:
| That isn't what money laundering is. Money laundering is
| taking illegally gotten funds and turning it into
| apparently legal funds. What you're describing is fraud:
| you took money for one purpose, and used it for something
| the donators didn't want it used for.
|
| Notably, it is _not_ money laundering to obscure the source
| of funds when they didn 't come from an illicit source. Nor
| is it money laundering to simply obscure the source of
| funds, so they don't come from any apparent source. If that
| were money laundering, it would be illegal to withdraw cash
| from an ATM, which is obviously absurd.
| underseacables wrote:
| Overzealous prosecution.
| wmf wrote:
| I feel sorry for any jury who has to keep track of 86 counts. The
| Ross Ulbricht and SBF trials look simple by comparison.
| ALittleLight wrote:
| Seems like there should be an optional trial end, in addition to
| conviction or acquittal, for "prosecution shouldn't have brought
| this case", where the accused would get some kind of
| compensation. I don't know the details of this case, but I
| remember hearing about it many years ago. I can't imagine the
| expense and stress of such a trial, dragging on for so long, and
| then at the end it's just "Okay, guess you're not guilty."
|
| Sometimes it seems like prosecutors brought a reasonable case
| given the evidence and tried it fairly. In this case, I believe
| acquittal is the right call. Other times it seems like a case
| that shouldn't have been brought and you should be compensated
| for that and/or the prosecutor should be punished.
| petertodd wrote:
| No need to make it optional. If the state can't convict on all
| counts, you should get full compensation for all expenses,
| including your legal bills, any time spent in prison, lost
| income, etc. In a case like this it would be millions of
| dollars, maybe tens of millions. Of course, this case probably
| wouldn't have happened in the first place if that was the way
| prosecutions worked...
|
| Most criminal cases are open-and-shut deals where the defendant
| is clearly guilty, so this wouldn't change much on average. But
| it would ensure that 1) prosecutors only prosecute what they
| can actually prove, 2) innocent peoples' lives aren't
| destroyed.
| lazide wrote:
| Can you imagine the public angst around the OJ trial if THAT
| was what happened?
| petertodd wrote:
| I'd rather people like OJ get some money out of a botched
| prosecution than the alternative. Most likely, we'd see a
| lot less botched prosecutions.
| mywittyname wrote:
| How many botched prosecutions are there? Most have a 90%+
| conviction rate because normal people can't stand up to
| professional interrogation. Even innocent people can
| incriminate themselves to the point where it isn't worth
| the risk of trial, so they plead to a lesser offense.
|
| Spend thousands going to court and possible spending 5
| years in jail vs. plead out for probation. The fact that
| going to court and winning might see you get legal fees
| plus a bit of money back doesn't change the calculus --
| the worst case outcome is still prison.
| petertodd wrote:
| It certainly changes the calculus: it's much easier to
| get a lawyer willing to work on contingency if there is a
| financial reward for winning. In civil cases it's quite
| common for lawyers to work on contingency because so many
| civil cases are obviously winnable, and have an immediate
| payout.
|
| Of course, in practice what _really_ would happen is it
| would be far less common for prosecutors to prosecute
| people when there isn 't a solid case against them. If
| what I'm suggesting was how criminal cases worked, I
| doubt that Backpage would have been charged at all.
|
| Note that I _also_ think that plea deals should be much
| less common, or even totally banned.
| mywittyname wrote:
| This is one of those things that sounds good in theory, but
| is terrible in practice.
|
| It would incentivize prosecution to avoid court at all costs.
| Which means de facto immunity for wealthy people who can
| easily afford to go to court. And it will probably make law
| enforcement even worse about railroading people who can't
| afford any legal representation.
| petertodd wrote:
| > It would incentivize prosecution to avoid court at all
| costs.
|
| Their job is to prosecute. Their only option is to pick
| cases that can be won. Which isn't hard, as the average
| person who is charged with some criminal act is not only
| guilty, but clearly guilty.
|
| > Which means de facto immunity for wealthy people who can
| easily afford to go to court.
|
| Money can't make a guilty man innocent. If you've actually
| done something wrong and there is evidence against you, the
| prosecution should have no qualms about prosecuting. In
| rare cases bad luck might lead to a payout due to a botched
| case or other unusual circumstance. But governments have
| enough money to self-insure for rare cases like that. It
| probably wouldn't even be a once-in-a-career event for the
| average prosecutor.
|
| > And it will probably make law enforcement even worse
| about railroading people who can't afford any legal
| representation.
|
| Rather the opposite: since full compensation is guaranteed
| if you win, it would be much easier to get a lawyer to work
| on contingency if you can convince them you are innocent.
| Right now that is very hard because even if you win, it's
| quite difficult to get the state to pay your legal bills so
| lawyers have no incentive to help you.
| gnicholas wrote:
| We have a very high bar for guilt in criminal trials. This is
| because we would rather have many guilty people go free than
| send an innocent person to prison (there are still mistakes,
| of course). Given this situation, it wouldn't make sense to
| assume anyone who is not convicted on even one count is
| actually innocent.
| petertodd wrote:
| > We have a very high bar for guilt in criminal trials.
|
| If we do, then my suggestion should be easy to implement
| and will only impact a tiny minority of cases.
|
| Of course, in this case it's pretty clear that the
| prosecution made up a bunch of charges that they knew
| they'd lose on to try to drain the resources of the people
| they were charging, as well as punish them pre-emptively.
| The prosecution also clearly broke the rules in other ways,
| eg by getting a mistrial when they kept on bringing up sex
| trafficking, a crime the Backpage founders simply weren't
| charged with.
|
| There are plenty of actual criminals in the world that need
| to be prosecuted. This case is clearly a politically
| motivated exception.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| > This is because we would rather have many guilty people
| go free than send an innocent person to prison
|
| No we wouldn't.
|
| Or we wouldn't utilize the plea deal in 93% of criminal
| cases. And we use it with little-to-no oversight. Unless
| what a prosecutor offers is so -utterly egregiously
| inappropriate- that it causes a judge to double take, they
| can pretty much do as they like.
|
| Which is why we use it more than 60x more per capita than
| any other country on earth, in those countries that even
| allow it (it's not even officially sanctioned in the UK,
| though it has happened - fun fact, nearly 40% of the cases
| appealed as a "miscarriage of justice" in the UK involved
| plea deals).
|
| > A government spokesperson said: "Ensuring defendants
| plead guilty at the earliest possible opportunity means
| victims and witnesses do not have to relive their
| potentially traumatic experiences in court."
|
| What? Not one word of innocence or presumption. Just "plead
| guilty early, we know you did it".
|
| Even in countries that do use plea deals more often,
| there's strict oversight into what the deals entail and
| understanding of outcome.
|
| Here, there's no incentive to rock the boat. Prosecutors
| push plea deals HEAVILY, innocence be damned, threatening
| the costs and risks of a trial (and the US over-charges
| people heavily) with a quick plea (that ever so
| conveniently allows our elected prosecutors to point to
| high conviction rates every re-election).
|
| > it wouldn't make sense to assume anyone who is not
| convicted on even one count is actually innocent
|
| Oof. Not only is it "possible" you're not actually
| innocent, your attitude is "it doesn't even make sense to
| assume that". Screw it, why do we need a justice system?
| You were arrested, let's just take you straight to prison.
| eitland wrote:
| In Norway we have two different "not guilty" outcomes:
|
| - "frifunnet pa grunn av bevisets stilling" (~"acquitted
| because of the situation with the evidence" my best translation
| at 00:02 in the night) which I think in practice means it
| wasn't proven that the person did it and so (s)he is acquitted.
|
| - "henlagt som intet straffbart forhold" (~"acquitted as no
| punishable offense" my best translation at 00:04 in the night)
| which I think means the investigation not only failed to prove
| guilt but also proved that a person was not guilty.
|
| I tried to find better translations but wasn't able to. Feel
| free to fill in.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| > The first [trial], in 2021, was declared a mistrial after
| prosecutors and their witnesses couldn't stop talking about sex
| trafficking despite none of the defendants facing sex trafficking
| charges
|
| Thats always been my take on the backpage case, but I didnt feel
| comfortable talking about it because people are too emotionally
| invested in curbing sex trafficking
|
| We'd be better off just treating it as labor trafficking, and not
| bothering with the non-trafficked people just like the rest of
| the job market.
| huytersd wrote:
| Good. Prostitution should be legal and regulated to begin with.
| People are getting HIV at an alarming rate because the whole
| system is unregulated.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-04-25 23:00 UTC)