Using a thief to catch thieves?

**Kralizec** · 02-01-2010, 18:41

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

"Buy" it, then arrest the criminals and get the money back.

I approve.

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 02-01-2010, 18:48

Originally Posted by Kralizec

I approve.

Well, then it's just evidence of a crime gained arresting someone for another crime.

**Kralizec** · 02-01-2010, 19:16

Not of a crime...if the German government intended to prosecute the tax-evaders as suspects of a crime, the evidence would be inadmissible. It can, however, be used to prove that they still owe the government taxes.

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 02-01-2010, 20:13

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Not of a crime...if the German government intended to prosecute the tax-evaders as suspects of a crime, the evidence would be inadmissible. It can, however, be used to prove that they still owe the government taxes.

If they arrested someone for breaking into a bank computer and discovered evidence of other felons' tax-evasion on the hacker the evidence for tax-evasion would be inadmissable?

If that was true Al Capone would never have been convicted!

**rory_20_uk** · 02-01-2010, 20:43

I'd be for getting it, but payment would be very much dependant on results. If those that evade taxes fear that they might be found, less will do so. Assuming that there are hefty fines for getting caught, this will have payoffs down the line too.

**Crazed Rabbit** · 02-01-2010, 20:55

It's wrong, and I'm against it. The government has rules they must follow to obtain evidence. To bypass those rules is to take people's rights away. Paying a thief to get info the government couldn't is using a contractor to bypass the laws put in place to protect the rights of citizens, and therefore destroys those rights.

CR

**Ironside** · 02-02-2010, 11:26

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

It's wrong, and I'm against it. The government has rules they must follow to obtain evidence. To bypass those rules is to take people's rights away. Paying a thief to get info the government couldn't is using a contractor to bypass the laws put in place to protect the rights of citizens, and therefore destroys those rights.

CR

Wouldn't that also apply if the thief gave the information for free as well? As he have broken company policy and probably a contract or two as well? I wouldn't approve of it benig used as the only evidence, but it could be used to find legally obtained evidence to use.

Tough one. I would go with accepting it on the basis that exposing crimes should be rewarded, but it should be heavily depended on the quality of the information mainly since it still gives me a sour taste and to try to prevent attemts to abuse it.

**CountArach** · 02-02-2010, 13:10

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

It's wrong, and I'm against it. The government has rules they must follow to obtain evidence. To bypass those rules is to take people's rights away. Paying a thief to get info the government couldn't is using a contractor to bypass the laws put in place to protect the rights of citizens, and therefore destroys those rights.

CR

I have to agree with CR here. Let the apocolypse come.

**Kralizec** · 02-01-2010, 22:49

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

If they arrested someone for breaking into a bank computer and discovered evidence of other felons' tax-evasion on the hacker the evidence for tax-evasion would be inadmissable?

If that was true Al Capone would never have been convicted!

That would be a different situation. There's no intent on the government's part to evade restrictions on evidence gathering in your scenario, they just luckily stumble on it.

In the current, real life scenario, the German government would basically evade all rules on how to acquire evidence by simply buying it from a third party who isn't bound by said rules. Crazed Rabbit is right, it might not be against the letter of the law but it's certainly agains the spirit. OTOH a tax debt is not a "punishment", criminal law doesn't come into play until they decide to prosecute you for deliberately evading taxes.

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 02-02-2010, 14:06

Originally Posted by Kralizec

That would be a different situation. There's no intent on the government's part to evade restrictions on evidence gathering in your scenario, they just luckily stumble on it.

In the current, real life scenario, the German government would basically evade all rules on how to acquire evidence by simply buying it from a third party who isn't bound by said rules. Crazed Rabbit is right, it might not be against the letter of the law but it's certainly agains the spirit. OTOH a tax debt is not a "punishment", criminal law doesn't come into play until they decide to prosecute you for deliberately evading taxes.

Well, my point was that the relevant government agency should have arrested the thief for trying to sell illegally obtained information, and then used the information. They shouldn't have considered "buying it", however they could offer to buy it (lie to the thief in order to get him to incriminate himself for himself).

Yes, I have no problem with entrapment.