[Trinidad]

gwnn, on 2015-May-31, 03:12, said:

OK so could you give me a straight answer: If I am doing money laundering on a US account but I only press Enter in the internet banking when I am not in the US, am I or am I not justifiably prosecuted by the US justice system? Money laundering is a crime in the US and Switzerland, too.

The straight answer: The Swiss should prosecute you. That is where you committed your crime.

The fact that this is a crime in both the USA and Switzerland does not suddenly make it right for the USA to prosecute. Swiss law applies. That doesn't only involve the decision whether to prosecute, but also, e.g. how the court procedure will take place and what the possible sentence might be.

Suppose that German drivers that are speeding on the German Autobahn would be prosecuted by the Dutch legal system (speeding is just as much an infraction in Germany as it is in the Netherlands). Suddenly those poor German BMW drivers would be paying enormous fines. (For those who don't know: speeding fines in the Netherlands are ridiculously high and in Germany ridiculously low.)

Rik

[gwnn]

OK so you actually do disagree with hrothgar (he thought breaking US law by laundering money using US bank accounts is grounds enough for prosecution as far as I can tell - he can clarify himself).

The speeding limit example is completely different since you have nothing to do with the Netherlands when you are driving the car in Germany (I know now you will come up with the example that I am speeding with a German car so Germany can prosecute anywhere?! No that is not what is going on since the US bank accounts are in the US). A better example would be if I am speeding in Germany with a remote-control car (which let's assume exists and is legal) and I happen to be pushing the buttons just across the border from the Netherlands. Now according to your definition, because I am physically in Enschede I should be prosecuted by the Dutch system although I caused damage in the German system (by increasing the risk of accidents). If I am laundering money on a US bank account, I am doing damage to the US financial system even if I am pushing Enter from Lausanne.

[1eyedjack]

Heh - have just read through 4 and a bit pages of posts, none of which acknowledge one rather important (to my mind) issue: No-one has been convicted of anything yet.

[Cyberyeti]

1eyedjack, on 2015-May-31, 15:23, said:

Heh - have just read through 4 and a bit pages of posts, none of which acknowledge one rather important (to my mind) issue: No-one has been convicted of anything yet.

Not in this round of it, but people within FIFA have already been banned for related stuff.

[gwnn]

1eyedjack, on 2015-May-31, 15:23, said:

Heh - have just read through 4 and a bit pages of posts, none of which acknowledge one rather important (to my mind) issue: No-one has been convicted of anything yet.

The DoJ said though that they already have several guilty pleas.

[mike777]

1eyedjack, on 2015-May-31, 15:23, said:

Heh - have just read through 4 and a bit pages of posts, none of which acknowledge one rather important (to my mind) issue: No-one has been convicted of anything yet.

4 of the accused have pleaded guilty including sons of Jack Warner.

[jjbrr]

1eyedjack, on 2015-May-31, 15:23, said:

Heh - have just read through 4 and a bit pages of posts, none of which acknowledge one rather important (to my mind) issue: No-one has been convicted of anything yet.

lol

[akwoo]

About who should prosecute (not this is not a determination of innocence or guilt) crimes reaching across borders:

1) The case of remotely controlling a car in Germany can be quite different from money laundering through an account in a US bank. The car is actually in Germany. It's very possible that the money laundering takes place in a Swiss branch of the bank, with managers who are Swiss, with data stored in servers in Switzerland (or, say, India), all denominated in Swiss Francs (or Euros or pounds), with essentially no effect on the US financial system other than the tiny risk this might somehow lead to bank failure. However, it has to be noted that the failure of a major Swiss bank has pretty much just as much effect on the US financial system as the failure of a US bank.

2) In the US, when a crime is committed, generally only the state in which it is committed has jurisdiction. There are two main exceptions. One is when the crime is committed on federal government property, in which case both the state and the federal government has jurisdiction. A second is when the crime crosses state lines in some way, and in this case usually only the federal government has jurisdiction, and the state has no jurisdiction. If I, for example, fraudulently sell a car to someone else in my state, I can be prosecuted only by my state government. On the other hand, if I fraudulently sell a car to someone in another state, and we do business over the telephone, then I can be prosecuted only by the federal government. (If I tow my non-functional car to another state, and then fraudulently sell the car to someone there (without having talked about it from my state beforehand), I can probably be prosecuted by both the state I sell my car in and the federal government.)

3) The US may claim jurisdiction when someone hits 'Enter' on Swiss soil, but there is a very strong safeguard in that the Swiss government (and or courts) have to approve extradition to the US.

4) The current situation in which transnational crimes are covered by multiple overlapping jurisdictions is indeed very messy. Probably it would be best for a series of international treaties to resolve the issue. Setting up an international court would probably not be possible (and leads to a large number of thorny legal issues), but some kind of uniform legal rules and procedures could possibly be established. Setting up procedures (to figure out how to apply the rules in any particular case) is probably harder than setting up the rules.

[jjbrr]

jjbrr, on 2015-May-31, 17:34, said:

lol

just to add some content to your joker post, the doj had a conviction rate of 93% in 2012. the guilty pleas notwithstanding, criminal charges are not thrown around lightly from the doj.

[mike777]

Clearly there is one simple way to reduce corruption in international soccer.

Ban international soccer.

It will not rid corruption but it will reduce it.

[MrAce]

mike777, on 2015-May-31, 22:23, said:

Clearly there is one simple way to reduce corruption in international soccer.

Ban international soccer.

It will not rid corruption but it will reduce it.

I really wanted to reply to this....but then again I like Mike.

[gwnn]

akwoo, on 2015-May-31, 20:18, said:

About who should prosecute (not this is not a determination of innocence or guilt) crimes reaching across borders:

1) The case of remotely controlling a car in Germany can be quite different from money laundering through an account in a US bank. The car is actually in Germany. It's very possible that the money laundering takes place in a Swiss branch of the bank, with managers who are Swiss, with data stored in servers in Switzerland (or, say, India), all denominated in Swiss Francs (or Euros or pounds), with essentially no effect on the US financial system other than the tiny risk this might somehow lead to bank failure. However, it has to be noted that the failure of a major Swiss bank has pretty much just as much effect on the US financial system as the failure of a US bank.

2) In the US, when a crime is committed, generally only the state in which it is committed has jurisdiction. There are two main exceptions. One is when the crime is committed on federal government property, in which case both the state and the federal government has jurisdiction. A second is when the crime crosses state lines in some way, and in this case usually only the federal government has jurisdiction, and the state has no jurisdiction. If I, for example, fraudulently sell a car to someone else in my state, I can be prosecuted only by my state government. On the other hand, if I fraudulently sell a car to someone in another state, and we do business over the telephone, then I can be prosecuted only by the federal government. (If I tow my non-functional car to another state, and then fraudulently sell the car to someone there (without having talked about it from my state beforehand), I can probably be prosecuted by both the state I sell my car in and the federal government.)

3) The US may claim jurisdiction when someone hits 'Enter' on Swiss soil, but there is a very strong safeguard in that the Swiss government (and or courts) have to approve extradition to the US.

4) The current situation in which transnational crimes are covered by multiple overlapping jurisdictions is indeed very messy. Probably it would be best for a series of international treaties to resolve the issue. Setting up an international court would probably not be possible (and leads to a large number of thorny legal issues), but some kind of uniform legal rules and procedures could possibly be established. Setting up procedures (to figure out how to apply the rules in any particular case) is probably harder than setting up the rules.

Thanks for that, very informative! I thought the crimes were committed on US branches but I should read up on the issue more (clearly). On 3, if the Swiss refuse extradition but the defendant visits the US later, I guess the US will still arrest him, right? Is that unjustified (let's suppose the US has more than enough evidence to convict and he did cause harm to the US by pressing Enter in Switzerland)? Does it matter whether or not it is a crime in Switzerland?

[helene_t]

Last time I went to Australia I killed some time during the transit in Singapore commiting some cybercrime. I used my British vpn so it is difficult to establish if I used the wifi of the airport or of the plane which was u.a.e. flagged and owned but physically I would probably be in Singapore jurisdiction during ground time while uae jurisdiction while the plane was flying. Or maybe malaysian jurisdiction since it was in malaysian airspace? Since the actual crime action was queued a few hours eearlier it is difficult to say where I was when I made the criminal mouseclicks.

These physical location details are of course irrelevant. I think it makes more sense to let it depend on the country of the bank account I used or of the provider that hosted the website where I put my malware.

[Cyberyeti]

jjbrr, on 2015-May-31, 21:28, said:

just to add some content to your joker post, the doj had a conviction rate of 93% in 2012. the guilty pleas notwithstanding, criminal charges are not thrown around lightly from the doj.

Actually this is not complete info, a number of people from Britain extradited and forced through the US courts plead guilty and plea bargain because they'd be bankrupted if they fought the cases whether they won or lost. It seems the US system doesn't seek to establish guilt, merely to pad the statistics and cause innocent people to plead guilty in these cases, particularly as they tend to extradite the suspects years in advance of the trial.

[gwnn]

helene_t, on 2015-June-01, 01:52, said:

Last time I went to Australia I killed some time during the transit in Singapore commiting some cybercrime. I used my British vpn so it is difficult to establish if I used the wifi of the airport or of the plane which was u.a.e. flagged and owned but physically I would probably be in Singapore jurisdiction during ground time while uae jurisdiction while the plane was flying. Or maybe malaysian jurisdiction since it was in malaysian airspace? Since the actual crime action was queued a few hours eearlier it is difficult to say where I was when I made the criminal mouseclicks.

These physical location details are of course irrelevant. I think it makes more sense to let it depend on the country of the bank account I used or of the provider that hosted the website where I put my malware.

Now that you confessed to it on an American server, maybe all four countries will try to get you.

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2015-May-30, 14:26, said:

if they go after you, might find some very innovative ways to put you in jail. I don't think this is paranoia, or at least not entirely.

Yeah, Al Capone should have been more careful about paying his taxes.

[gwnn]

Blatter RESIGNS!!

http://www.theguardi...ion-claims-live

[jjbrr]

We did it!

[billw55]

Well, I certainly wasn't expecting that. They must have really had him cornered.

[mike777]

Now we will see just how corrupt international soccer has become or not.

early reports of gambling and fixing of games and bribery and payoffs among many many countries that makes the rot sound deep.

Or the fans may just say forget it and let us move on.

ONe report said over 1000 killed in building of CUP games in Qutar ..if true it seems not many really care that much.