They should be - but they should also have some leniency from lacking clear intent. The people who spread this “hack” obviously knew it was check fraud and some of these folks may have known it… but some others may just be rubes. Obviously it’ll come down to the actual trials but it’d be good to let most of these folks off with just returning the stolen funds with no additional punishment. There isn’t really any deterrence value from punishing people who knew no better for exploiting a now closed loop hole - there’s no possibility to copy cat the check fraud now.
I’d also love to see the FTC go after JP Morgan for such a fucking large security hole - this hack was only possible because of their negligence.
I don’t mean to be confrontational, I genuinely want to know where it “explicitly does”.
I’m not in the US and my countries criminal code has a § (§17 german stgb) that as long as you are legally competent you are responsible for your actions even if you were ignorant of the law.
If you are pointing at those that are not legally competent/ non compos mentis, I think the point there is not so much the not knowing of the law, but being unable to understand a law.
I assume some variation of this exist for other jurisdictions, but in the US, some crimes require prosection to prove “intent” (mens rea) Depending on the crime, you might have to know that it’s illegal for mens rea.
In US Tax Court, there’s precedence that ignorance of tax code is a defense for criminal tax.
Agree on all points. Like these people clearly committed fraud but if you’re careless enough to get suckered into this you probably weren’t the most financially savvy person to begin with. Balancing the scale should be enough. On the other hand the banking sector really needs to modernise. So much is built on archaic legacy systems and there doesn’t seem to be any motivation to modernise and foolproof them. The economies too busy chugging along to care about how secure the foundations of it are.
They should be - but they should also have some leniency from lacking clear intent. The people who spread this “hack” obviously knew it was check fraud and some of these folks may have known it… but some others may just be rubes. Obviously it’ll come down to the actual trials but it’d be good to let most of these folks off with just returning the stolen funds with no additional punishment. There isn’t really any deterrence value from punishing people who knew no better for exploiting a now closed loop hole - there’s no possibility to copy cat the check fraud now.
I’d also love to see the FTC go after JP Morgan for such a fucking large security hole - this hack was only possible because of their negligence.
Ignorantia juris non excusat - “Ignorance of the law excuses not”
Except in the cases where it explicitly does.
Which are?
I don’t mean to be confrontational, I genuinely want to know where it “explicitly does”.
I’m not in the US and my countries criminal code has a § (§17 german stgb) that as long as you are legally competent you are responsible for your actions even if you were ignorant of the law.
If you are pointing at those that are not legally competent/ non compos mentis, I think the point there is not so much the not knowing of the law, but being unable to understand a law.
I assume some variation of this exist for other jurisdictions, but in the US, some crimes require prosection to prove “intent” (mens rea) Depending on the crime, you might have to know that it’s illegal for mens rea.
In US Tax Court, there’s precedence that ignorance of tax code is a defense for criminal tax.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea#Ignorance_of_law_contrasted_with_mens_rea
Agree on all points. Like these people clearly committed fraud but if you’re careless enough to get suckered into this you probably weren’t the most financially savvy person to begin with. Balancing the scale should be enough. On the other hand the banking sector really needs to modernise. So much is built on archaic legacy systems and there doesn’t seem to be any motivation to modernise and foolproof them. The economies too busy chugging along to care about how secure the foundations of it are.