Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Judge acquits Backpage co-founder Michael Lacey on most counts

reason.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 229 posts

Re: Judge acquits Backpage co-founder Michael Lacey on most counts

#21

Post by brookst »

beaeglebeachh wrote: post #6
nadermx wrote: post #3

"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…

And how is it money laundering if it turned out the money wasn't proceeds of crime.

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.

Re: Judge acquits Backpage co-founder Michael Lacey on most counts

#23

Post by petertodd »

lazide wrote: post #20
petertodd wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-s…

Can you imagine the public angst around the OJ trial if THAT was what happened?

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.

Re: Judge acquits Backpage co-founder Michael Lacey on most counts

#24

Post by mywittyname »

petertodd wrote: post #16
ALittleLight wrote: post #14

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 g…

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-s…

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.

Re: Judge acquits Backpage co-founder Michael Lacey on most counts

#25

Post by gnicholas »

petertodd wrote: post #16
ALittleLight wrote: post #14

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 g…

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-s…

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.

Re: Judge acquits Backpage co-founder Michael Lacey on most counts

#26

Post by dmurray »

beaeglebeachh wrote: post #6
nadermx wrote: post #3

"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…

And how is it money laundering if it turned out the money wasn't proceeds of crime.

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.

Re: Judge acquits Backpage co-founder Michael Lacey on most counts

#27

Post by mywittyname »

petertodd wrote: post #23
lazide wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you imagine the public angst around the OJ trial if THAT was what happened?

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.

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.

Re: Judge acquits Backpage co-founder Michael Lacey on most counts

#28

Post by petertodd »

mywittyname wrote: post #24
petertodd wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-s…

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.

> 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.

Re: Judge acquits Backpage co-founder Michael Lacey on most counts

#29

Post by petertodd »

mywittyname wrote: post #27
petertodd wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 mig…

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.

Re: Judge acquits Backpage co-founder Michael Lacey on most counts

#30

Post by petertodd »

gnicholas wrote: post #25
petertodd wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-s…

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.

> 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.

Post reply on HN