Hacker News Reader

Comment by friendcomputer | Hacker News Reader

It's really hard to claim that the LR guys are innocent. The comparison with Ford is completely out. If you read the indictment itself it's fairly clear that they were knowingly building a system to work around money laundering laws (including the Patriot Act) and went to great difficulty to do so.

If they come after bitcoin and you make the same comment, I'll be more sympathetic.

View on HN

> If you read the indictment itself it's fairly clear that they were knowingly building a system to work around money laundering laws (including the Patriot Act) and went to great difficulty to do so.

Reading an indictment to determine whether the accused did something wrong is about as sensible as watching Fox News to determine whether Barack Obama is a socialist. All indictments paint the defendants as guilty.

And since when is working around the law a crime? It's almost by definition not a crime, because the whole idea is to accomplish the goal you set out to achieve without breaking the law.

  | And since when is working around the
  | law a crime?

Finding a loophole in the law, may make what you did technically legal, but it doesn't make it all of the sudden a 'good' thing. If I found a loophole in the laws that let me defraud you of all your money, while technically staying inside of the law, would I not still be a fraudster/conman, even if I didn't run afowl of any 'fraud' laws?

I think theres a rather large difference between finding away around the law to defraud/steal from someone and finding a way to send money cheaper/easier then existing methods.

Its very much like how urber or air bNb are finding ways around existing constrictive regulations designed to protect existing incumbents.

I mean really, what business is it of the governments is it who i send my money to??

  | I think theres a rather large difference between finding away around the
  | law to defraud/steal from someone and finding a way to send money
  | cheaper/easier then existing methods.

  | I mean really, what business is it of the governments is it who i send my
  | money to??

My response about fraud was an example to highlight how 'working around the law' doesn't necessarily mean that you are or aren't doing something. You may not be doing it by the legal definition, but you can still be doing it by the 'common' definition.

  | designed to protect existing incumbents

So, you're saying that tenants breaking their lease agreements is a good thing. Because the tenant is 'disrupting' the landlord (the 'incumbent')?

If I have a house that I want to rent out, am I an evil person that needs to be put in my place by the tenants that rent it from me? Is there someone wrong with me wanting to vet the people that will be living in said house (especially since damage done to the house can be hard to recover in some municipalities)?

> So, you're saying that tenants breaking their lease agreements is a good thing

That is not what i was referring to, I was talking about the laws the city passes to prevent it and protect hotels.

Your scenario is assuming the conclusion. Defrauding someone will cause you to be guilty of fraud, because that's what "defraud" means.

What you mean to say is that there are some things which are contemptible but still technically legal. But the converse is also true: Some things remain legally prohibited that would otherwise be morally unobjectionable. Legality and morality are independent variables.

Whether doing a thing is 'good' or not has nothing to do with whether that thing is legal, "technically legal" or totally illegal. All its legal status tells you is whether you can expect to be convicted of it if accused.

  | Defrauding someone will cause you to be
  | guilty of fraud, because that's what
  | "defraud" means.

The legal definition and the 'common' definition of something don't always match up.

You didn't answer his question. He didn't ask if it was morally ok, but when it started being an actual crime.

Leaving aside the question of whether evading a law through a technicality is alright (and surely the court will decide whether they were successful at that or not), but the indictment indicates they misled financial regulators, submitted a fraudulent verification system to regulators that falsified data, and indicated they sold the company to a foreign entity then continued to operate it surreptitiously through shell companies. This doesn't sound like squeaking by on a technicality.

I really don't see why everyone is assuming these guys are in the right. I don't see much to support that claim.

The indictment is just a list of the stuff the prosecutor thinks will make the defendants look like bad people. They haven't actually proved anything yet.

>I really don't see why everyone is assuming these guys are in the right. I don't see much to support that claim.

You don't see much to support that claim in the indictment? No kidding.

Costa Rica is a foreign country, why should it not try to work round US laws? It has no responsibility to the US taxpayer or government. I don't understand how the US legal system has an jurisdiction there at all.

OK, I assume that they would be leant on and "persuaded" to give this thing up, but that just big bully boy tactics. Not a moral or legal thing.

If you read the indictment itself it's fairly clear that they were knowingly building a system to work around money laundering laws (including the Patriot Act) and went to great difficulty to do so.

An indictment is not a reliable source of objective fact or unbiased interpretation of fact. It's an accusation, written to make the accused sound as deplorable as possible.

First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com