Law enforcement agents only stepped in after the perpetrator had been committing crimes online for a long time. From the article:

> As far back as 2016, the account with that moniker bought names, addresses, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers on the underground marketplaces that traffic in illicit online goods. He took that personal info to open banking accounts in the names of unwitting strangers, and used those accounts to make trades based on insider information he gleaned from others

The reason they do things like sell fake information is that they need to engage with the person, who is already committing these crimes on their own, in some way that produces the least amount of additional criminal activity. Hence the fake info sale and then the purchase of real into, both of which the guy was advertising online before the agents engaged him.

This isn’t entrapment. He was advertising illegal services by his own choosing. The police didn’t make him do these crimes on the dark web (before they even got involved). They simply engaged with him as another one of his dark web customers to build a case.

> The police didn’t make him do these crimes on the dark web (before they even got involved).

I tend to always assume the police are lying in the United States. How do we know they weren't doing this longer than they say?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction

OK you know what? I reread this and the timeline, and you're right. This seemed to be pretty limited in providing activation energy for the crimes.

There's some irony in getting caught with real insider info, when most of the complaint seems to center around this person lying and making up insider info.

> I'm getting a bit tired of things that smell an awful lot like entrapment

In most countries "entrapment" requires that the suspect is unwilling, unlikely or under no suspicion of committing a crime. The guy they caught was actively looking for buyers and had been selling information on a purpose build board before he was kicked out of it for selling bad info.

No it doesn't require suspects to be those things "in most countries". The suspect has to do so by their own volition and not after prodding by a cop. If a cop asks if you want to buy some drugs and you say yes then the cop can be punished, not you, no matter if you might be suspected of wanting to buy drugs. This sneaky entrapment is a very American thing and won't be accepted by most courts. Just like US cops pretending to be prostitutes and then arresting the client. That's entrapment in "most countries".

Can you provide any citations for your claim?

I’m reviewing the few countries listed in the Wikipedia page on entrapment ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment ) but I don’t see how this would trigger any of the exclusions listed.

The criminal in question was advertising his services across the dark web. Officers simply bought his product and sold him something he was advertising himself as buying.

They didn’t go out and encourage him to do these things. He was doing them and the agents engaged as customers so they could unveil his identity.

He wasn't 'prodded', he was given an opportunity to do something he was already doing and any suggestion that this is entrapment is only made by people who have no idea what that word actually means. This sort of investigative technique would be perfectly valid in most countries and I think you really have no idea what you are talking about.

Stop being so snarky and read the comment again please. What I were replying to were a comment stating that "the suspect is unwilling, unlikely or under no suspicion of committing a crime" for it to be entrapment, which is false in most places no matter what happens in the case from the article. It's unrelated.

If a cop asks me if I want to buy drugs and I say yes, they most definitely have no case whatsoever here in Denmark even though I were willing to buy. Luckily we don't have these insane laws that cause police to get people in a bad place and then punish them for it.

> If a cop asks me if I want to buy drugs and I say yes, they most definitely have no case whatsoever here in Denmark even though I were willing to buy.

That is also exactly how it works in the US. Intention and action, both are required.

If a cop asks you if you want to buy drugs, you say yes, he pulls out a baggie of white powder he claims is an 8-ball and then you hand over a wad of cash you are going to jail as soon as you accept the baggie in exchange for the cash. It was not a crime until you paid for the 'drugs'. The cop is giving you the opportunity to commit the crime, but the choice to do so is entirely made by you. That is not entrapment.

The key factor in most cases is if the actions of the police officer would have coerced a normally law-abiding citizen into breaking the law. An easy test for entrapment (but by no means a conclusive one) is if you swap out the cop with a criminal would the same transaction have occurred -- if you are ready to buy drugs from the cop it is likely that you would have bought them from a street dealer as well. Who was on the other side of the transaction didn't matter to you.

> If a cop asks me if I want to buy drugs and I say yes, they most definitely have no case whatsoever here in Denmark

USA, circa 1993: I was in a car with a couple friends going to a neighborhood simply called "Temple", where meth labs were prevalent and you could procure any sort of drugs you wanted, if you knew where to park. Cops were everywhere and they stopped us, as we tried to turn around. "What are you white kids doing in Temple?" Before our driver could answer, a friend stuck his body between the front seats and yelled "we are here to buy drugs but you guys fucked it up!" - The cop did not laugh, but they let us go on our way.

So were you there to buy drugs?

In the US cops can actually have sex with prostitutes and then arrest them for prostitution afterwards. The justice system is broken.

> If a cop asks if you want to buy some drugs and you say yes then the cop can be punished, not you, no matter if you might be suspected of wanting to buy drugs.

In this engineer's case, this is more like the engineer being a well-known drug dealer and the cop asking if the engineer can sell the cop drugs, then the engineer (willingly!) giving the cop some drugs and the cop then arresting the engineer. You have it backwards here.

No. That's not right.

Just think about it a bit - if a cop asking you to commit a crime tainted the investigation then bad-guys could prove they weren't police by telling you to commit a crime. "Hey, buy some drugs from me." "Well, he must be legit, there's no way a cop could say that!"

Also, "this sneaky entrapment is a very American thing and won't be accepted by most courts." You're both lacking for world perspective, and an understanding of the purpose of law. If Country X made this illegal, I as a resident of Country X would be upset, not happy, because it would make my legal system worthless. So even if the law were this silly, somewhere, it would change right away by overwhelming citizen demand.

You know, we the people elect those who write the laws. The laws aren't something done to us, they're our tool for making the world work.

Hahahahaha I remember when I thought that’s how the world worked.

Most countries don't even have an entrapment defense [1]. They regulate police overreach by other mechanisms.

[1] https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/46710181.pdf

Entrapment is a subtle concept. Most people misunderstand it; police are legally permitted to do much more than most expect.

This guide enumerates the misunderstandings about entrapment, and (if you're not already a lawyer) it will likely teach you something that could prove valuable: https://thecriminallawyer.tumblr.com/post/19810672629/12-i-w...

I tend to agree, in many cases.

But when evaluating claims of entrapment, it is really important to pay attention to narrative manipulation. Where you start the story, for instance, matters a lot. If there are people undercover, there are going to be colorable ways to paint just about anything as entrapment.

That said, it does happen, and it is both horrifying and counterproductive.

https://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-is-manufacturing-terrori...

There was a shooting by two “isis” members at a Draw the Prophet (Muhammad) event in Garland Texas in 2015. It came out later that their undercover FBI handler had organized and encouraged this attack.

Treason

You'd think that, but when the security guard who got shot sued the federal government, US District Court Judge Karen Gren Scholer dismissed the lawsuit and wrote: "The Court finds that the conduct alleged by Plaintiff fall[s] within the scope of the discretionary authority conferred on the FBI by the Undercover Guidelines and the [DIOG (Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide)]."

This is treason. Falling under some guide written by the same people the Agent works for does not absolve Him of His crimes, regardless of what a judge says.

It's a very American thing sadly. In most countries this would not be accepted by a court.

American justice , the puritan way

You might find this cspan call about LEO press releases interesting.

This is FBI Agents Association representative Rey Tariche responding to an observation that look like they’re entrapping in order to justify their budget.

https://noagendaassets.com/enc/1555616344.323_producermattca...

Drugdealer selling heroine to the undercover cop level "entrapment". Such an injustice.

Remember the Ammon Bundy incident and trial? This was the case where a group of right-wing tax protesters took over a chunk of Federal land in Oregon. A big part of their subsequent acquittal was the reveal that nine of the occupiers were actually FBI informants.

Of course, Bundy went on to do other crazy stunts later on. But given the information available to the jury at the time, they decided that the government had gone too far in the Oregon case.

in some countries entrapment is explicitly and strictly forbidden. like if law enforcement has an infiltrated agent, it's a risk that could void the case

And in some countries entrapment isn't even a thing. You broke the law, you'll get punished regardless if coerced by a cop or not.

With good enough manipulation techniques you can make anyone do anything, so basically services can send LEO to groom undesirable citizen into committing a crime and then lock them up legally. It's just slightly more sophisticated than Soviets did.

Yea, you can absolutely do that. The country I'm speaking about is Denmark.

The police can also break down your door without a warrant and use anything they find against you. Them having entered illegally may have consequences for their unemployment(though it won't), but the evidence is still admissible in court.

Like where, North Korea?

Did you spend even 5 minutes thinking about what you just said?

Civilians rely on cops for instructions and directions. Furthermore a cop can order around civilians under threat of force.

If a cop forces you to commit a crime and then jails you, they can extort you for money corruption will be through the roof.

Thats what we have in Russia, the security services are superbly corrupt and regularly extort people. At least there they are breaking the law while doing so. You are suggesting we make it legal here.

So in a nutshell, the LE was stroking man's temptation and it turns out he had low enough threshold to follow through. It's almost like a thought crime. Why something like this is legal in the US?

Except that's not what happened, there was no entrapment, and the US has a very similar legal system to other Western nations.

As far as I know, entrapment in the US is very specific and only counts of you do a criminal activity because someone is a police officer.

I.e. If a police officer talks you into selling drugs you're totally on the hook unless he said something along the lines of "I'm from the police, it's fine / you must".

No. Entrapment in the US means they push you into doing something you weren’t inclined to do.

A cop saying “I’m a cop and you have to smash this window or someone will die!” is indeed a form of it, but there are others.

An undercover cop who pushes and prods and begs you to get them some pot until you give in is entrapment, even if they never reveal they’re a cop.

> An undercover cop who pushes and prods and begs you to get them some pot until you give in is entrapment

Only if they are actually coercing you (e.g. by physically threatening you). Asking really nicely or being annoying doesn't count.

No. Coercion and threats are not necessary. Persistence alone counts.

For example, California's jury instructions on the defense:

https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/3400/3408/

> Some examples of entrapment might include conduct like badgering, persuasion by flattery or coaxing, repeated and insistent requests, or an appeal to friendship or sympathy.

Or SCOTUS:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_v._United_States

> Unanimously, the Court overturned the conviction of a recovering New York drug addict who had been repeatedly solicited for drug sales by a fellow former addict who was working with federal agents.

It's very american for me these things where your behaviour and moral character seem to be more important than the impact of your crime.

I m not sure I d pursue a guy who traded nothing on fake intel damaging no one, even if there was a potential in his character. We have to accept people arent perfect and we may only be able to punish crimes after they happen and damage people.

In France I was taught that the only goal of the justice system is to repair tort created to a victim, not cleanse society of evil thoughts.

In the southern US public schools I was taught there were three goals of criminal punishment. I provide the list as a data point, and not representative of my personal views. The list is provided in no particular order.

1. To deter future crimes. If something is punished heavily people will be more reluctant to do it.

2. To reform the criminal. Time spent in jail might provide people with the opportunity to ‘turn their life around’. This time spent will prevent the criminal from doing any future crimes in the outside world both while in jail and after their release.

3. To provide justice to the victims. If something was stolen then it must be returned. Knowing a murderer is caught/safe will provide some relief to the victims. Justice is important to a civil society.

> If something is punished heavily people will be more reluctant to do it.

That's not exactly right. Effective deterrence has more to do with the certainty of punishment than the severity of punishment.

> To provide justice to the victims.

Agree 100% here. The justice system is a tool of the people, and if the people believe it is ineffective they are far more likely to take matters into their own hands. In a civil society we definitely don't want that.

In the US we definitely have trouble with #2 however. Maybe some of our puritan roots. Punishment is more important than rehabilitation. And we stack the deck against ex-cons and make it very difficult for them to successfully return to society and be a productive member.

"1. To deter future crimes. If something is punished heavily people will be more reluctant to do it."

We know this doesnt work, we have been running this experiment in imperial britain for hundreds of years - in 1700 you would be hanged for stealing groceries. Executions were a public holiday, so everyone could see and be impressed.

It worked so well that while thiefs were being hanged, pickpockets cleared out wallets of the oblivious crowd watching.

Extra history has an excellent series that lends serious perspective on the subject: https://youtu.be/XvMQY_y4qx8

There's a difference between 'fails at the extremes' and 'never worked a little'.

In a society where life is cheap and legal advancement is painful and opportunities are rare, you'll have the situation you mention. If the law is always fatal but rarely applied, why consider it at all?

In a comfortable society that has free food for everyone, a wider range of punishments actually does tend to control crime. In my country Murder can get you (effective) life, and selling marijuana on the street can't. You can buy joints easily but hitmen remain scarce.

The fact that crime still exists doesn't mean that public, extreme, and/or gruesome punishment doesn't act like a deterrent which reduces the frequency of crime. I'm not saying that inhumane punishments it necessarily justified, but this argument is fallacious.

The crime was 20x worse and more common back when we had death penalty.

Comvined with the fact that most EU countries have much lower crime rate than US and have no death penalty, it shoupd be clear that death penalty is totally ineffective at reducing crime. There is literally no place on earth where you can demonstrate "we introduced death penalty and crime has fallen" by any significant amount. We do, however, have ironclad proof that rehabilitation makes a difference. We have proof that quality of investigators that make sure the perpetrator is caught for sure makes a difference.

Recently in UK our inconpetent government has reduced the amount of police resources avaliable to investigate crime. More crimes are unsolved, crime rates increase because criminals are unounished, and they are hoping to compensate with tougher sentences. And that iduotic because we know it doesnt work, it never did

>Comvined with the fact that most EU countries have much lower crime rate than US and have no death penalty

Comparing US to EU is not valid in this context because we have different demographics and culture surrounding most criminality in the US. And deterrents have different levels of effectiveness depending on the individuals and cultures onto which they are introduced.

> And that iduotic because we know it doesnt work, it never did

I would question statistics on the subject given that, presuming "tougher" means more likely and longer imprisonment, literally reduces crime by removing criminals from society. There is an enormous confounding factor in that policing has been reduced, so it's going to be very difficult to tease out how much more (or less) crime would have increased without stiffer penalties.

Again this is not a value judgement, just pointing out that the fact that crime exists does not mean that deterrents don't work. That said, I presume the kind of person willing to commit a crime with punishment in range of the death penalty is probably not likely to be the kind of person who responds to deterrent - but I wonder how likely such a person can possibly be "rehabilitated".

But the argument that it does deter is also weakened. It's unfalsifiable if the response to "we removed the death penalty and crime did not increase" is "maybe crime would have started falling, and removing the death penalty prevented that". (I know that's not what you said, but it's an extension of the argument you describe.)