[nullc]

The prosecution was intended to be a political centerpiece for the California AG, which is why it was carried forward even though their own internal legal opinion was that the crimes the AG wanted charged hadn't been committed. That is why they kept re-prosecution as their initial charges were dismissed by the courts, that's why the continued after a mistrial they created by the state repeatedly trying to taint the jury against the court's explicit orders.

You might have heard of this AG: she's running for president which is why there isn't going to be any useful discussion of the subject because there are far too many people now who are deeply invested in covering for her corrupt and abusive conduct. Maybe after the election.

As to why it was excluded, it was an internal legal work-product-- privileged. Of course, the state could have choose to disclose these facts, and they're ethically and (presumably) legally prohibited from bringing false prosecutions like this. But because of the rules of the game the courts have have to pretend they don't know about it. But we don't have to.

The "money laundering" charge was that the government leaned on their banking partners to cut them off ( e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point a program where the government abused its capricious regulatory power over banks and payment processors to cause them to shut down activity that the government doesn't like but could not lawfully prohibit )-- so the site switched to using Bitcoin. Money laundering rules are so broadly written that doing things that avoid reporting even if you had no material choice can be a violation -- at least if someone in power thinks that destroying you will serve their naked ambition.

I don't think there is any serious contention that backpage used bitcoin for any reason other than the government's abusive exclusion of them from conventional payment rails.

One person dead, another process tortured for years and going to prison over substantially baseless prosecution, with an exculpatory opinion intentionally concealed from the jury. It's gross and makes me embarrassed to live in California.

[cowboylowrez]

It wasn't a "false prosecution", it was just legal efforts against prostitution (with all of its accompanying baggage like underage prostitution and trafficking). Like it or not, once you have a goal in mind like shutting down backpage for its prostitution business (pimping), then its game on for attorneys.

"Authorities say the site generated $500 million in prostitution-related revenue from its inception in 2004 until it was shut down by the government in 2018."

thats a boatload of money lol

[nullc]

That isn't what the charged them with and the AG's office own legal opinion was that the site was an asset in the fight against trafficking. Which was a problem because what the AG was attempting to charge them with was child trafficking. Instead, the only charge that stuck was money laundering due to the aforementioned use of Bitcoin after the government blocked their payment rails.

[cowboylowrez]

I'm pretty sure it was the online prostitution that started this, and according to what I can find, there are still prostitution related charges ahead, as well as convictions (and guilty pleas) by others. Remember, it was the nature of the ads that caused him to have to use bitcoin in the first place. Sort of like Capone getting jail on tax evasion lol

They did indeed charge him with the prostitution thing from what I've read, its just in the one trial the jury deadlocked on those counts. Whats more sus to me however is allegations that backpage "managers took an active role in editing ads in the adult section," this is not the way to even appear innocent of the prostitution charges.

I absolutely agree that backpage was more of an asset against trafficking, it makes sense that if you want to fight trafficking, backpage seemed at a superficial level to be able to help here, and obviously the sex business will just move elsewhere and with probably less visability. Its not like prostitution is going to stop, but I'm guessing it can be at least less of a nuisance. I'm certainly not the guy to campaign for a version of the morality police.

I'm just disagreeing with the "false prosecution" characterization thats all, I think it was a legit application of the law, although I'd rather see a more liberal handling of consenting sex between adults.