[1_person]

Frankly, being convicted of wire fraud, mail fraud and money laundering might as well be an acquittal.

The wire fraud and mail fraud statutes are written to be vague enough that basically existing is a violation, money laundering is existing with money.

If they had real crimes they would have charged them, this is just some "because I don't like you" political bullshit.

[rsynnott]

... Wait, are you suggesting that everyone is doing fraud and six figure money laundering?

[enkid]

Are you saying he didn't commit a crime or he shouldn't be held legally responsible for what he did? I don't see how your view is consistent with anything else.

[michael1999]

There are many jurisdictions where this would be a tort, not a criminal matter. Being sued into the ground is another way to be held legally responsible. It is a reasonable question if this is the best use of scarce criminal justice resources.

[cutemonster]

Enough people like him could damage and eventually destroy many American companies, I'd think. That'd create unemployment and weaken the country, so seems to me it's something worth to try to stop and discourage, from the DOJ's point of view, even if the company doesn't want to sue? Netflix even withdrew their lawsuit -- but then the DOJ continued anyway (if I understood correctly) good that they could do that I think

[1_person]

I don't really know enough about what happened to have an opinion on it, and neither do you, but the media's told you to hate him, so here we are I guess.

Moving on, what I actually said, and what I actually meant, was that those laws are incredibly vague and have been used to convict more or less everything under the sun except actual wire or mail frauds.

If a conviction involves only wire, mail, and money laundering charges then it is because the only guilt that could be proven was axiomatic.

Pardon me for pausing a moment to ponder before picking up a stone and joining you.

[enkid]

So, you admit there is such a thing as wire and mail fraud, and those laws should exist, and yet if someone is convicted of those crimes it is automatically because they couldn't convict them of another crime. And you don't know enough about this case to make a judgement and yet the only reason they convicted this person of this crime is because it is "axiomatic." You aren't convincing me these are bad laws from this argument.

[1_person]

I'm not trying to, either.

Read the laws or remain ignorant, I don't care.