Ain’t that some BS

  • kreskin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    ·
    edit-2
    17 hours ago

    Guy was innocent until they had proof of a crime. They didnt have any proof so boohoo for them. And they charged him of damaging property. Its his property, and its not damaged.

    • Lyrl@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      12 hours ago

      The intent of the law was to have something to charge corporate fraudsters with if they destroyed the accounting records with proof of their fraud when served a warrant. Or illegal drug manufacturers destroying their chemlab. Ownership of the property doesn’t come into it.

      The envisioned cases were always domestic crime investigations where there was already enough evidence to get a warrant. The application at customs where they don’t need a warrant is the novelty, and I really hope the government loses its case.

      • HasturInYellow@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        11 hours ago

        That isn’t their property. That belongs to the company.

        Case should be thrown out and the prosecutors charged with something.