Obvious to whom? Neither having nor seeing $800,000 in cash is a crime. While he may have had reason to be suspicious, that is not what the law requires. There must be actual knowledge of illegal use. Professional gamblers carry this kind of cash and more all the time. They could have been on their way to a poker game for all he knew.
>Most damningly, he tried to isolate himself from information (if you don't suspect a client of being a criminal, you don't instruct them to avoid talking of their usage)
You just indicted every criminal defense lawyer, and most accountants, in America. As officers of the court, lawyers are not supposed to knowingly make representations in court that they know not to be true. For precisely this reason, unlike in the movies, most lawyers will not sit down and ask a client to just tell them everything that happened; actual knowledge of certain facts could seriously damage their ability to defend their client. Instead they analyze the discovery given to them by the prosecution and ask the client questions as needed. Isolating yourself from information is certainly not a crime, and is necessary for many people in order to properly do their jobs.
From the decision of Anaya's 2013 appeal [http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-10th-circuit/1642115.html], here's a synopsis of the evidence that swayed the jury to believe he knew what he was doing. Its not just the 800K.
3. Sufficient Evidence of Knowledge
At trial, the Government presented evidence that Mr. Anaya
• built multiple hidden compartments in vehicles for the DTO that were insulated to mask the smell of drugs;
• witnessed $800,000 in one of his compartments in a DTO vehicle;
• used “kilos” as a unit of measurement for building compartments;
• communicated by phone with the DTO through a secret code to discuss compartment sizes; and
• warned Mr. Crow not to discuss the compartments or how they worked with anyone to avoid police detection.
A criminal in what manner? What act did he commit that harmed another person or that was in some way or another unethical or immoral? Whom did he cheat?
He isn't a criminal in that sense at all. He's a criminal for breaking a vaguely worded and open-to-interpretation law that seems unconstitutional on its face.
When the government writes a bad law here and there, it's just the inevitable mistakes that we hope will be eventually corrected. But when the government writes one bad law after another, with never a good one in between, "criminal" ceases to mean anything.
> He witnessed $800,000
And? I find it hilarious how we've been taught and propagandized to think that money is, itself, horrible and incriminating. They have our bank tellers spying on us for the IRS, fuck, I don't even think you can buy a new car with cash without someone phoning it in to the feds. And whatever you do, don't dare drive out-of-state down a highway with money like that... cops are likely to steal it.
> Do the people in this thread think that getaway drivers on bank robberies should get off scot free because driving a car is not itself a crime?
Apparently you're ready to indict the guy that sold him the car, and the gas station attendant that didn't call it in to the police when he saw them filling up the tank.
Who's being irrational here? If a law is "unnecessary and ill-conceived," why is it irrational to complain about the law being enforced? I think that's very rational. I think he should be able to explicitly say, even advertise "I will create a secret compartment in your vehicle where you can put drugs," without risking any legal trouble. 24 years in prison is too harsh a sentence. Spending the night in jail would be too harsh a sentence. A $50 fine would be too harsh a sentence.
> Do the people in this thread think that getaway drivers on bank robberies should get off scot free because driving a car is not itself a crime?
No, because laws prohibiting robbery and theft are reasonable laws.
Put simply: Americans have the laws they have because they were written down by the folks Americans voted for. We can debate forever about how we're mostly made up of sheeple and the election process is biased and all the other things that get in the way of pure, fun-loving democracy, but that doesn't mean we just get to decide at an individual level which laws we don't think are rational and then break them.
It's not a valid legal defense in the legal system where that law exists, obviously. But that doesn't mean we should approve of the enforcement of bad laws. That's the Nuremberg defense. If a law is bad, the law should be changed, but it's also bad for the law to be enforced, and not bad to break the law.
> but that doesn't mean we just get to decide at an individual level which laws we don't think are rational and then break them.
Again, I completely disagree. You're making a moral argument that people ought to obey all laws. I find that argument repulsive. What do you think about civil disobedience?
Civil disobedience is almost never undertaken at the individual level, and more specifically it is never successful at the individual level. It is an exercise undertaken by a society. Society making judgements about the rationality of laws and then using civil and legislative means to affect change on the laws themselves is healthy and valid.
By contrast, making these judgements at the individual level opens up a whole world of danger, because our individual feelings on what is and is not rational vary as widely as our viewpoints on everything else.
What do you mean by "feasible"? I am certainly capable of deciding which laws I think are rational and choosing which laws to obey.
> Civil disobedience is almost never undertaken at the individual level, and more specifically it is never successful at the individual level. It is an exercise undertaken by a society.
You seem to be conflating civil disobedience with organized protest or resistance. Civil disobedience is just a deliberate refusal to obey a rule one believes to be a bad rule. It doesn't have to be organized.
You seem to have a disdain for all individual discretion about rules and laws. I disagree, and strongly. Only individuals act, and I think only individuals have the ability and responsibility to choose how to act.
Nobody in America discusses weight of speakers, computers, or anything in kilos. Perhaps the only other place I've heard it used is for bumper plates. I'd frankly bet more than 90% of Americans couldn't tell you off the top of their heads if a kilo weighs more or less than a pound.
Yes, but not Americans. 9/10 times, if an American is talking about kilos they're talking about drugs.
I think this is more like putting the car salesman in jail for selling them the getaway car ... and that would be wrong.
> But it's patently obvious that Anaya is a criminal and engaged in criminal conspiracy to traffic narcotics.
You can say the same about every bank in America, which facilitates the same. Oh and probably every electric utility for growing all that weed. Water utility too?
I mean, it's not like they ask each of their clients if they're drug dealers or growing dope. They don't exactly look for the criminals either.
Probably because it's not their job.
They did not go after, or put in jail, the people that sold the cars to the drug dealers, because, as you say, that would be wrong. They went after the person that knowingly made it possible for the drug dealers to commit their crimes.
> You can say the same about every bank in America, which facilitates the same.
Actually, they do stop doing business with you when reasonably believe you are committing a crime.
http://www.denverpost.com/marijuana/ci_25965517/reluctance-b...
Did you read the article? The guy had no idea what they were doing.
The only difference here is that unlike banks, utilities, etc. he's just a small guy who doesn't have friends in the right places, so I guess it's OK to throw him in jail for 24 years.
They had ZERO evidence that he knew what his work was being used for. That's why it's so outrageous.
That's patently false. You've fallen victim to Wired painting this guy as a saint. If you actually read the details of the case, you'll see that, in addition to the incident with the wads of cash, he also instructed his clients not to talk about the compartments, and also used drug-related code words on the phone to talk about the capacity of the compartments.
After reading the article, I was incredibly sympathetic toward Anaya, because that's what the author wanted us to feel, and wrote the article that way. After reading about some of the actual facts of the case... not so much anymore.
This needs a citation for your argument to hold water.
Edit for the down vote:
You made a statement of law on which your argument relied. The burden of proof is on the asserting party. It matters whether the law does actually exists. There is no point in debating the law if what we're talking about is not actually a law.
Do you really think crypto authors should get off scot free when their software is at the crux of criminal communication? They know exactly what they are doing, don't they?
Yes, the war on drugs is probably unnecessary and ill-conceived. And no, it's not illegal to put a secret compartment in your car.
But it's patently obvious that Anaya is a criminal and engaged in criminal conspiracy to traffic narcotics. He quoted the capacity of his compartments in "kilos." He witnessed $800,000 in the compartment and subsequently increased his rates specifically because he knew it was a shady affair. Most damningly, he tried to isolate himself from information (if you don't suspect a client of being a criminal, you don't instruct them to avoid talking of their usage). In what world is someone who willfully helps drug dealers to conceal drugs not an accomplice?
Do the people in this thread think that getaway drivers on bank robberies should get off scot free because driving a car is not itself a crime?
Also, the Wired editorializing is way off base. If you are truly operating in an information void from your clients (without suspecting them of being criminals), that's not illegal. (Toyota can't be prosecuted for drug trafficking just because some drug dealers use it for that.) But when you have a personal relationship with clients who make it pretty obvious that they're engaged in criminal activity, you absolutely have an obligation to stop assisting.