FIFA

[Aberlour10]

Only one example out of topic..

 

A single old US judge is able to ruin a whole country, Argentine in this case. His decission to block Argentines foreign debt restructuring and payments on the bond holders which are agreed with this restructuring may lead to bankcruptcy of this country. He means a several Wall Street sharks who bought old Argentinian bonds for the pennies should first become full payment on these bonds = billions.

 

To critiise such a circumstances has nothing with anti-american to do

[jjbrr]

lol

[gwnn]

Criticising that case (which I found shocking but would need to know more about all the details to pronounce an informed opinion - I am not sure in which measure to blame the sharks, the judge, or Argentina and I think you also don't, despite your emotionally laden post) would be much more reasonable than this case. That was my point.

[Trinidad]

In addition to the money laundering involving US banks, isn't there also US interest due to bribery being involved in Qatar getting the 2022 World Cup over the US?

 

Which country's jurisdiction is appropriate for activities like this, which affect all the contending nations?

Two possibilities:

 

- The country where the money changed hands, or the illegal agreements were made. (I know that is difficult, but such is life.)

 

- The seat of FIFA (Switzerland, I presume) which is the country of the institution whose primary interests were harmed and presumably has in their contracts with all their staff a clause that legal battles are supposed to be fought in Switzerland. FIFA could (and should) take civil action against their people when they take bribes. (I know, FIFA is so corrupt, it is not interested.)

 

So, if these guys were in the USA when they "involved those US banks" then go get 'em. If they were not, then they didn't do anything wrong in the USA, did they? And then the USA doesn't have jurisdiction, no matter how much they would like to have jurisdiction.

 

Rik

[gwnn]

So if I move to Liberland and I start doing all sorts of cybercrime using American accounts, I am not culpable of anything? Another thing your goofy counterexamples are ignoring is that Switzerland only extradites the suspects if they have committed a crime that is also a crime in Switzerland.

[mike777]

Only one example out of topic..

 

A single old US judge is able to ruin a whole country, Argentine in this case. His decission to block Argentines foreign debt restructuring and payments on the bond holders which are agreed with this restructuring may lead to bankcruptcy of this country. He means a several Wall Street sharks who bought old Argentinian bonds for the pennies should first become full payment on these bonds = billions.

 

To critiise such a circumstances has nothing with anti-american to do

 

 

Argentina agreed to USA court and law when they sold the bonds.

 

In any event USA may NOT be the best country to try and clean up FIFA given it is not our big sport. It might have been better for some soccer loving country to take the lead.

 

I expect soccer fans in a few months, in most countries, will end up forgiving FIFA and blame the USA as being the bad guy.

[Trinidad]

I expect soccer fans in a few months, in most countries, will end up forgiving FIFA and blame the USA as being the bad guy.

Well, given that Blatter got re-elected, that probably is true already now.

 

However, I don't think that Western-Europe is going to forgive FIFA. Part of Western-Europe (like me) may not like the way the USA might be claiming jurisdiction, but I don't think we will see the USA as the bad guy.

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

So if I move to Liberland and I start doing all sorts of cybercrime using American accounts, I am not culpable of anything? Another thing your goofy counterexamples are ignoring is that Switzerland only extradites the suspects if they have committed a crime that is also a crime in Switzerland.

When you are in Liberland you abide by the laws of Liberland. And others have no business interfering with Liberland's sovereignty. That is how we do things. There is one exception and that is for crimes against humanity (or something like that).

 

If the USA doesn't like the laws of Liberland (or the way Liberland is not enforcing their laws), they can forbid their banks to do business in/from/to/with Liberland. They cannot prosecute you for things that Americans consider crimes when you perpetrated these acts in Liberland. The fact that you used an American account, or an American car, or a Yankees baseball bat does not change that.

 

The perfect example of how it should be done is happening the other way around right now.

 

No European country has been prosecuting USA authorities for murder. According to the principle behind this American law they would be able to do that: European Pentobarbital has been used in executions. This is a clear crime in European eyes, and there is a clear link to Europe. But the USA is a sovereign country. What we consider a crime (executing people) is not a crime in the USA and the people of the USA get to decide on that, not we Europeans. What Europe can do (and actually does) is forbid European companies to sell Pentobarbital to the USA. This is the equivalent of the US government forbidding banks from doing business with Liberland.

 

Rik

[gwnn]

OK I guess I have to spell it out for you: Liberland is not a proper country (it is a bit of unclaimed land between Serbia and Croatia). It has no laws. I was simply asking what you thought about crimes done on no man's land, since in your view where your feet are is such an important criterion apparently. Apparently you think that if I don't carry around the money in a big black briefcase when I defraud the people I intend to defraud, nobody has jurisdiction over me. What if the crime I commit is done on an airplane that is above the North Pole at the time I commit it? No jurisdiction at all? Maybe I don't understand what you mean, but you just keep on bringing up laws that differ between the two countries, whereas the two countries (Switzerland and the US) apparently agree that they will only extradite the suspects if the crimes are recognised as such by both of the countries.

[Aberlour10]

Blatter won 133:73 I think the only way to get him and his clan out of buisness : All main sponsors of the Fifa say we cant go on like this. But I doubt it can ever happen.

[Trinidad]

What if the crime I commit is done on an airplane that is above the North Pole at the time I commit it? No jurisdiction at all?

Jurisdiction (and sovereignty) are important principles. That is why jurisdiction has been defined incredibly clearly internationally. (There are few things that virtually all countries agree on so well.)

 

To take your example of an airplane flying over the North Pole: Jurisdiction has been defined. It is not Denmark, Norway, Russia, or Canada. It is the country where the air plane belongs (is registered). So it could be Japan or the USA, or the Netherlands. But it would be clear which one it was.

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

OK I guess I have to spell it out for you: Liberland is not a proper country (it is a bit of unclaimed land between Serbia and Croatia). It has no laws. I was simply asking what you thought about crimes done on no man's land, since in your view where your feet are is such an important criterion apparently.

If Liberland has no laws, then how is it possible to commit a crime over there? You can defraud whoever you like from Liberland. It is not illegal. And it is nobody else's GDB to think anything of that, if the people of Liberland (1 person IIRC) have decided that.

 

Rik

[PhilKing]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2814362/

 

Tim Roth, Sam Neill, Gerard Depardieu - what were you thinking?

[gwnn]

If Liberland has no laws, then how is it possible to commit a crime over there? You can defraud whoever you like from Liberland. It is not illegal. And it is nobody else's GDB to think anything of that, if the people of Liberland (1 person IIRC) have decided that.

 

Rik

I was thinking about something like someone stealing money from US accounts (or Dutch ones if you like) online, pressing Enter in Liberland, which has no government recognized by anyone, or on an unclaimed island. If they do money laundering using American bank accounts but press Enter only outside any state, they are completely off the hook?

 

Thanks for the clarification on the airplane case, I should have looked that up myself.

 

All of this may be beside the point of course since the DoJ also claims that a lot of the fraudulent deals have been agreed to in the US (Putin thinks that "it's clear that" nothing actually happened on US soil but I don't know how he can know that for sure since he doesn't even know what happened, just says that "whatever did happen, happened outside"). I don't know where the suspects were when they pressed Enter but it seems strange to say that that is the only thing that counts.

[kenberg]

I see the issue as follows:

 

We all agree it is good to catch bad guys. People in law enforcement are paid to do this and it is absolutely natural that they will use all of the tools at their disposal to do so. It's up to well-intentioned people not directly involved either as perpetrators or as apprehenders to set the parameters on what is and hat is not legit. The views of the FBI Director, quoted earlier in post 28, were very expansive. You don't have to be either pro-American or anti-American to be concerned here.

 

The problem is that if rules can be stretched to punish the bad guys, these same rules can be stretched in the same way to punish someone whose only transgression was to aggravate someone in power.

 

For example: On this thread, people have made comments about Qatar and comments about FIFA. Maybe the comments about Qatar are a hanging offense (ok, probably not but you get the point) in Qatar and the comments about FIFA are subject to libel laws somewhere (this may well be so). I would be opposed to extraditing these posters.

 

It's a new world out there, and I am far from certain what the rules are or what they should be.

 

I do get the idea, in this case, that at least some of the charges refer to what has taken place in Miami, in New York, and in boardrooms of US corporations. That's certainly fair game for the FBI.

[hrothgar]

Does anyone dispute that using branches of US chartered banks that are located within the United States to launder money is a violation of US laws?

 

If not, why there any argument about jurisdiction?

[kenberg]

Does anyone dispute that using US chartered banks located within the United States to launder money is a violation of US laws?

If not, why there an argument about jurisdiction?

 

That would seem to do it, as would the fact that offenses (added: alleged offenses, here in the US we can say almost anything as long as wed preface it with alleged) took place in New York and Miami. I was more concerned with the FBI guy's idea that if you use the internet you are subject to prosecution. Or "if you touch our shores", a rather open ended criterion. I expect, or at least I hope, that the legal case will be tight here.

 

I have stayed out of trouble, mostly anyway, by having a decent intuitive grasp of what is acceptable here in the US. There are few if any laws that I know in any detail. When abroad, I watch myself a bit more, not because the laws are necessarily more stringent but because I don't have a good feel for them.

 

As we all become international, I am going to have to revise my thinking, perhaps.

[Cyberyeti]

There are some cases where I really dislike the US reach into the outside world. An example being an internet service legal in the country in which it's hosted, illegal in the US that some US people sign up to. The executives of the UK company who've never set foot in the US or deliberately done business there then get extradited under a provision that when it was passed we were assured would only be used for terrorism offences.

 

In this case, there are clear US links and I have no issue with the US taking the lead where other countries fear to tread.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/soccer/2015/05/28/brazil-delegate-marco-polo-del-nero-leaves-switzerland-fifa-vote/28126493/

 

Meanwhile, the story above amused me greatly.

[Trinidad]

Does anyone dispute that using branches of US chartered banks that are located within the United States to launder money is a violation of US laws?

I certainly don't.

 

If not, why there any argument about jurisdiction?

Because, as I understood it, the arrests where made under a law that deems it sufficient that the crime has "some link" (e.g. use of internet provider, etc.) to the USA for the USA to have jurisdiction.

 

I don't want any country to have jurisdiction over what I am doing, other than the country where I am doing it.

 

This means that for what I type on BBF right now from my living room,

• I could (in theory) be prosecuted in the Netherlands,
  
• BBO can ban me,
  
• my Dutch internet provider can refuse to serve me,
  
• Microsoft can revoke the software license (I am using explorer),
  
• but the US government (or that of Iran, North Korea or Senegal) has nothing to do with it.
  

 

Rik

[hrothgar]

Because, as I understood it, the arrests where made under a law that deems it sufficient that the crime has "some link" (e.g. use of internet provider, etc.) to the USA for the USA to have jurisdiction.

 

I don't want any country to have jurisdiction over what I am doing, other than the country where I am doing it.

 

Arguably, if you are using servers that are based in the US, you are doing something in the US.

 

With this said and done, there were a lot of charges leveled against the individuals who are being extradited to the US.

I doubt that the claims about use of an ISP would have been sufficient in and of themselves.

[gwnn]

They cannot prosecute you for things that Americans consider crimes when you perpetrated these acts in Liberland. The fact that you used an American account, or an American car, or a Yankees baseball bat does not change that.

OK am I misreading this or are you changing your position now?

 

I guess 90% of our argument boiled down to "internet account" vs "bank account." I was talking about the latter and you about the former.

[mike777]

Not exactly sure where an internet account is located. Some posters seem to feel it is located in one exact GPS location and only one. NOt sure that is true.

 

Sort of like asking where exactly is my money located at a large bank. It may be in several places under several diff set of laws.

 

IN any event as I suggested not sure it is best that the USA takes the LEAD to clean up FIFA as soccer is not really our sport. Will not be surprised if in few months, many fans feel the USA is the bad guy here rather than FIFA who they will forgive and forget.

[barmar]

Not exactly sure where an internet account is located. Some posters seem to feel it is located in one exact GPS location and only one. NOt sure that is true.

 

Sort of like asking where exactly is my money located at a large bank. It may be in several places under several diff set of laws.

 

IN any event as I suggested not sure it is best that the USA takes the LEAD to clean up FIFA as soccer is not really our sport. Will not be surprised if in few months, many fans feel the USA is the bad guy here rather than FIFA who they will forgive and forget.

IANAL, but my guess is that if you commit a crime in a physical location, like a robbery in a bank branch, it's the location of the branch that sets the jurisdiction. If you commit it electronically against a corporation, I suspect you'd go by the state of incorporation.

[kenberg]

I feel that to some extent I know most of you and I am guessing that the overall agreement is broader than it might appear.

 

1. I doubt anyone is shedding tears over FIFA.

 

2. Law enforcement agencies can get out of control.

 

As usual, analogies are risky but this brings to mind Bobby Kenned versus the Teamsters in the early 60s. Bobby was AG, Jimmy Hoffa was head of the Teamsters, Kennedy really wante to put Hoffa in jail Hoffa would taunt him. Something like "They investigated Hoffa, they interrogated Hoffa, they got nothing". Not an exact quote, but yes, he did speak of himself in the third person. No one felt all that sorry for Hoffa, he probably belonged in jail, but more than a few of us noted that we really hoped RFK never focused his sights on us. I don't even know how to launder money, but I must have done something sometime somehow.

 

Big organizations, national or especially international, have big muscle, legal and otherwise, so bringing them to heel is never going to be pretty. So stuff happens. Still, we need to be cautious in giving power to someone who, if they go after you, might find some very innovative ways to put you in jail. I don't think this is paranoia, or at least not entirely.

[hrothgar]

IANAL, but my guess is that if you commit a crime in a physical location, like a robbery in a bank branch, it's the location of the branch that sets the jurisdiction. If you commit it electronically against a corporation, I suspect you'd go by the state of incorporation.

 

FWIW, I need to deal with these sorts of legal issues far more than I would like.

 

A surprising number of jurisdictions are passing new sets of laws that require that the servers that are used to provide services to their citizens are located within the same country / jurisdiction. I've seen these laws from Russia, India, multiple countries within the EU, the UK (which may or may not be in the EU), Turkey, Thailand.

 

Officially, the reasons being given involve privacy concerns. I wonder whether the local governments understand how this is going to impact the cost of provisioning services...

(If this goes through, its not going to be pretty)