141–150 of 208 posts
America shouldn't be allowed to extradite and prosecute people who have not committed crimes in America. They'd never allow it in reverse. Also the justice system there doesn't inspire confidence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That sounds like the lobster seller was charged under the notoriously broad Lacy Act, which I have heard most often in arguments that is is impossible to be cognizant of everything that is illegal in the US, since this law roughly imports foreign laws. My understanding is it makes it a federal crime to trade in wildlife or plants that are illegal under the laws of a state, a Native American tribe, or any foreign law.…
And not just living plants, but also (quite dead) wood and products derived from wood, apparently especially if the CEO donated to the opposing political party (the GOP): https://humanevents.com/2014/05/30/the-true-villains-behind-...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibson#FWS_raids_&_Lacey_Act_v...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> jurisdiction depends on where the crime was committed No, it doesn't. Sovereignty is inherently unlimited. Jurisdiction depends on the law of the party seeking to exercise it. Bringing someone before the court with jurisdiction may sometimes require external cooperation, but the terms of that are products of diplomacy; there's no hard and fast universal rules.
This is a maximalist view of sovereignty that happens to be common in very few countries on the planet, namely the ones not afraid to use violence against anyone stating the opposite: the US, China, Russia, and a handful of rogue states.
Its actually obligatory under treaties of near universal acceptance; though of course nations are free (and some do) choose not to exercise jurisdiction beyond their borders outside of those areas where treaty requires it. Though I think the more common choice is to apply jurisdiction both to citizens/nationals irregardless of location for at least some offenses as well as general jurisdiction over national territory.
Its true that some countries, like the US, are more inclined than others to assert non-obligatory jurisdiction over acts by foreigners on foreign territory.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That sounds like the lobster seller was charged under the notoriously broad Lacy Act, which I have heard most often in arguments that is is impossible to be cognizant of everything that is illegal in the US, since this law roughly imports foreign laws. My understanding is it makes it a federal crime to trade in wildlife or plants that are illegal under the laws of a state, a Native American tribe, or any foreign law.…
And not just living plants, but also (quite dead) wood and products derived from wood, apparently especially if the CEO donated to the opposing political party (the GOP): https://humanevents.com/2014/05/30/the-true-villains-behind-...
Both Martin and Taylor ran far, far away from this scheme.
Gibson absolutely deserved the whacking they got.
You can get around these problems in a legal way and be somewhat responsible. Taylor, famously, bought all the ebony stands in the world and promised to buy all ebony at the same price because the local population were cutting down rare ebony trees and leaving them to rot if they didn't have black heartwood. This, of course, creates a monopoly which is its own problem ... however, any solution you come up with has to take into account that the locals will destroy the extremely rare ebony trees for absurdly small (to us) amounts of money.
You can work within the legal frameworks, and Gibson has more than enough staff to be able to comply. Gibson isn't some tiny company that unjustly trod by the government. Had you or I done this, we would be rotting in jail. Gibson merely got a fine and even got its wood back.
Some details here: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/former-autonomy-cfo-sen... > The evidence at trial demonstrated that for more than two years prior to the sale, Hussain, 55, a citizen and resident of the United Kingdom, used sophisticated accounting methods to falsely inflate Autonomy’s revenues to make it appear Autonomy was growing when it really was not. Specifically, Hussain used backdated contracts, round…
I'm slightly confused, and forgive my ignorance: how do you channel stuff software? I mean, granted this is 2009 - 2011, but even back then were Autonomy really selling software as a physically packaged good, or is there some way that virtual goods can be channel stuffed? (E.g., selling a shedload of license keys to resellers, many of which remain unsold to end users? Would that be something that even applied to the software Autonomy made?)
EDIT: Similarly, for roundtripping, doesn't there need to be another company or companies involved? Doesn't there have to be some collusion? And if so, who are these other parties and why aren't we hearing about them?
EDIT 2: This might explain the channel stuffing comment, and provide some mechanism for it: "fraudulently concealed from investors and market analysts the scale of Autonomy’s hardware sales".
The US UK extradition treaty is a product of post 9/11 and comically imbalanced as persons may be extradited from the UK to the US for crimes committed in the UK which would be a crime in the US but not the opposite. See further: https://www.stokoepartnership.com/bambos-tsiattalou-discusse...
The opposite is true as well. A US person can be federally charged for violating a foreign law while overseas. The example used when I read of this was a guy convicted for wrapping lobsters for shipment in Nicaragua in wax paper instead of a bag (or something along those lines). It was very strange because the violation in Nicaragua was a misdemeanor, but the US law for committing a crime is a felony.
I think OP said: An UK citizen can be extradicted from the UK to the US just by having done a thing that it is illegal in the US but not in the UK.
You said: An US citizen can be charged in the US if he committed a crime abroad even if that thing is not typified as illegal in the US.
Wake me up when an US citizen is extradicted to the UK because he did something perfectly legal in Washington but which is considered a crime in London.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It shouldn’t matter: jurisdiction depends on where the crime was committed, not on alleged victim’s nationality. This only happens one way, with extradition to the US, thanks to worldwide bullying.
As a US resident, if I rolled a large boulder downhill and fatally crushed a small child across the Mexican or Canadian border, would I be liable to extradition?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The smiley face makes it sound like you think that's a good outcome for fraud?
No, sorry. I won't comment on his guilt/innocent. I don't know either way. My smile is bemused/embarrassed that we've reached a point where he will go and stand trial in another country for an allegation of something that happened here, and whether he is found innocent or guilty won't really effect my opinion of him because my faith in the system is that low.
That makes more sense; thanks for the clarification.
America shouldn't be allowed to extradite and prosecute people who have not committed crimes in America. They'd never allow it in reverse. Also the justice system there doesn't inspire confidence.
having the biggest economy, army, navy and airforce in the world means whats allowed is relative to that power
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And not just living plants, but also (quite dead) wood and products derived from wood, apparently especially if the CEO donated to the opposing political party (the GOP): https://humanevents.com/2014/05/30/the-true-villains-behind-...
"At one point in the saga, Juszkiewicz was told by government agents he could make his problems go away if he used foreign labor for manufacturing." Wow-- (I do get we should not be importing endangered s pieces of wood. This seems like someone overreacted? I guess the moral of the story is don't play around with the feds?)
Exotic wood is in many ways like conflict diamonds. It funds some quite horrible people who will denude a country of its exotic wood if allowed--we have seen this in action already.
Enforcement is far easier on the US side than on the origin side--which is normally some corrupt as hell dictatorship with people who are brutally poor.