SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
IT pros indicted after arranging credit card payments for weed startup:
On March 9, 2020, a German IT consultant named Ruben Weigand had a layover in Los Angeles as he traveled from Switzerland to Costa Rica. He never made it to his destination because US authorities arrested him as he was changing planes.
The feds say Weigand and a co-conspirator, Hamid "Ray" Akhavan, were the masterminds behind a multimillion-dollar bank-fraud scheme. The supposed fraud? Tricking US banks into processing more than $100 million in marijuana transactions that went contrary to the banks' rules. According to a March indictment, the pair disguised marijuana transactions as purchases of dog toys, carbonated drinks, diving gear, and other products unrelated to cannabis.
Lawyers for the two men say this is ludicrous because the alleged bank fraud had no victims. The customers knew exactly what they were paying for. The banks involved suffered no losses—in fact, they made money from transaction fees.
Moreover, marijuana is legal under state law in California and Oregon, where the transactions occurred. Marijuana remains illegal under federal law, but since 2014, a rule called the Rohrabacher Amendment has prohibited the feds from interfering with state medical marijuana laws. In a recent motion seeking dismissal of the case, Akhavan's lawyers portray the prosecution as an attempted end-run around this restriction.
Extraterritoriality in the Internet Age?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Sulla on Thursday July 09 2020, @06:19AM (3 children)
I agree with them but that doesn't make what they did legal. Based on that statement I assume the defense is going for a jury nullification.
These laws are bullshit though and need to be changed.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday July 09 2020, @07:38AM (2 children)
I'm not so sure about that. Everybody (including the banks) got what they were expecting out of the transaction. The Banks did not knowingly process a transaction for a scheduled substance, so they have not been induced to a crime. It's really on the ragged edge of not being a crime.
I propose a simple substitution to make the prosecutor's motives more clear. For example, a similar operation is performed to mask the buying of sex toys as something less likely to be embarrassing if anyone looked. Would we likely see this level of prosecutorial zeal? If not, then the prosecution really might be in violation of the Rohrabacher Amendment.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Thursday July 09 2020, @02:38PM
As to that...
--
The gene pool is shallow. And polluted.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Friday July 10 2020, @02:57AM
Whether or not the banks knew about the transaction they are liable for processing those payments. A sales clerk can still be fired for selling alcohol to a minor when the minor presented an entirely passable ID showing the minor is over 21. I'm not saying its a good law, but it is unfortunately a valid law. Based on the law and the length of time this went on for the banks can have serious consequences applied to them by the fed because they failed in auditing their transactions. Where i work we audit employee pcard purchases all the time for stuff we are not legally allowed to buy, if we miss something we are liable. If an employee purchased alcohol, passed it off as something else, we never noticed, but auditors find it, we would be in serious trouble.
1) Pot should be descheduled
2) One of the jurors should refuse to confict and say they felt the law was invalid
Both are acceptable in our system.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam