Text 9133, 73 rader
Skriven 2010-07-11 09:43:11 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
     Kommentar till en text av Roy Witt (1:387/22)
Ärende: LEO the lion (was: Important message from the moderator)
================================================================
Hello Roy,

On Friday July 09 2010 11:14, you wrote to me:

 MvdV>>>> A bank. And so the bank will ask for a court order to break
 MvdV>>>> client confidentiality.

 RW>>> No problem. Banks are willing LEO partners when it comes to wire
 RW>>> fraud.

 MvdV>> Not in The Netherlands. Especially since "wire fraud" is not in
 MvdV>> the book of criminal las in The Netharlands.

 RW> So much for progressive countries.

Whatever. Fact is that a bank will NOT break client confidentiality without a
court order. Your detective will run into a brick wall.

 RW>>>>> He excepted $10k in cash

 MvdV>>>> In a hotel room in Aruba. Illegally recorded.

 RW>>> Wrong. Legally recorded with the cooperation of the Aruban
 RW>>> authorities.

 MvdV>> Mo way. See previous message.

 RW> Way.

No way.

 MvdV>>>> The record of the transaction does not prove something
 MvdV>>>> illegal took place.

 RW>>> That record is circumstantial evidence in building the case for
 RW>>> wire fraud.

 MvdV>> Wire fraud is not in the Dutch book of criminal law.

 RW> I'll bet there is something similar.

There is "fraud" of course. What happened in that hotel room does not qualify.
There is also failure to deliver on a deal. Not a criminal offence, but a civil
offencce. Civil offences are not ground for extradition.

Other than that: in case of selling information, failure to deliver is hard to
prove. As I explained in another message, the problem with selling information
is that the seller will not reveal what exactly he is selling as that would
amount to giving it away for free. So the buyer takes a risk:  what he gets,
may not be what he wants or hopes to get.

 RW> It seems that Euros are as crooked as the states when it comes to it.

You are entitled to your opinion but that does not change the fact that under
Dutch law, it would be very hard to make a case that would stand up in an
Aruban court deciding on an extradition request.

 RW> "French Court Hands Noriega A 7-Year Prison Term

What happens in France to Noriega has nothing to do with Johan vander Sloot in
Aruba.

 MvdV>> Posession of $15000 in cash is not a criminal offence.

 RW> Apparently it is, see above.

The Noriega case in France has nothing to do with Johan van der Sloot in Aruba.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)