[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Jacob]

Why risk going to jail?  Fraud is still illegal, after all.  Sure, as a crack dealer I'm sure he's done some time, but why put his head in the noose?

So you think they thought they could sell the video - to the press no less - for $250K quietly?

I guess maybe... they figured they could sell the video quietly and fade away before receiving any attention - rather than try to collect the money while everyone was interested in the case. I suppose that could have happened.

... it just seems awfully disciplined to me that they're walking away from what's basically money on the table. That doesn't really fit the profile of most scam artists, I'd think.

[Neil]

Why wouldn't they?  Their knowledge of how these transactions work is based on movies and TV, not to mention their own experiences in the crack trade.

[Malthus]

It all sounds plausible Malthus, except the "cold feet" part doesn't quite make sense to me. If they are scammers and shake down artists, why not  take the money and release the video? It's unlikely they have a professional reputation to maintain. So "cold feet" doesn't really make sense to me, unless it covers something other than "it won't stand up to scrutiny".

Three possible hypotheses that make sense to me are:

1. Somehow the makers of the video are in a position where releasing the video is bad for them - not because the video won't pass muster, but because releasing it will harm their interests one way or the other.

2. It was a political job to start with, and the figure it's better the video is kept off the table because it won't stand up to scrutiny and it will change the direction of the story which is focusing in Ford rather than the video; in other words, it is being more effective unreleased than it would be, released (or alternately, releasing it later will extend the story).

3. They sold the video and decided to make themselves scarce; whoever bought it (so unlikely to be press) is hanging on to it for whatever reason.

I'm guessing they thought, like you, they could just sell the video and scram and let the buyers worried about whether it was authentic.

The buyers, OTOH, probably suggested some scheme where the money was held "in escrow" pending some sort of technical confirmation that the video was in fact legitimate - that is, some third party lawyer would hold the money and only release it if the report from some expert came back positive. It's an obvious legal-type precaution to take before handing over 200K for dubious goods - but I doubt your average Somalian crack dealer would have known that in advance (after all, you didn't, and you are a lot more sophisticated than a Somalian crack dealer).

On hearing this, the sellers realized they were well and truly fucked with these buyers - the video, a fake (in this scenario), would never pass serious professional scrutiny, so the scammers could never be paid. So they scrammed, hoping to find someone else willing to buy with less safeguards. 

In short, it may not be the threat of prosecution, but rather the certainty of not getting paid, that is holding up the transaction.

[Josephus]

It all sounds plausible Malthus, except the "cold feet" part doesn't quite make sense to me. If they are scammers and shake down artists, why not  take the money and release the video? It's unlikely they have a professional reputation to maintain. So "cold feet" doesn't really make sense to me, unless it covers something other than "it won't stand up to scrutiny".

Three possible hypotheses that make sense to me are:

1. Somehow the makers of the video are in a position where releasing the video is bad for them - not because the video won't pass muster, but because releasing it will harm their interests one way or the other.

2. It was a political job to start with, and the figure it's better the video is kept off the table because it won't stand up to scrutiny and it will change the direction of the story which is focusing in Ford rather than the video; in other words, it is being more effective unreleased than it would be, released (or alternately, releasing it later will extend the story).

3. They sold the video and decided to make themselves scarce; whoever bought it (so unlikely to be press) is hanging on to it for whatever reason.

I'm guessing they thought, like you, they could just sell the video and scram and let the buyers worried about whether it was authentic.

The buyers, OTOH, probably suggested some scheme where the money was held "in escrow" pending some sort of technical confirmation that the video was in fact legitimate - that is, some third party lawyer would hold the money and only release it if the report from some expert came back positive. It's an obvious legal-type precaution to take before handing over 200K for dubious goods - but I doubt your average Somalian crack dealer would have known that in advance (after all, you didn't, and you are a lot more sophisticated than a Somalian crack dealer).

On hearing this, the sellers realized they were well and truly fucked with these buyers - the video, a fake (in this scenario), would never pass serious professional scrutiny, so the scammers could never be paid. So they scrammed, hoping to find someone else willing to buy with less safeguards. 

In short, it may not be the threat of prosecution, but rather the certainty of not getting paid, that is holding up the transaction.

Only a lawyer would think that.

[Malthus]

Only a lawyer would think that.

If I was thinking of handing over $200K to some Somali drug dealers for a video which implicates a mayor in criminality, I'd be consulting a lawyer. Wouldn't you? 

[Jacob]

you are a lot more sophisticated than a Somalian crack dealer

Thanks!

In any case, maybe it's obvious legal-type stuff that's keeping the video from surfacing. I agree that if there's some sort of "we're keeping the money in escrow" proposed the blackmailers are unlikely to deal - though I expect that's independent of the quality of the video. I expect the only deal they'd take is "give us the money and we give you the video" not "we'll let you look at the video and then we'll rely on your word to have the money released to us".

That said, I thought the reported issue was that they can't contact the people with the video, not that they're unable to reach a deal with them?

[garbon]

That said, I thought the reported issue was that they can't contact the people with the video, not that they're unable to reach a deal with them?

Isn't it even more shady than that in that gawker says they are in contact with the intermediary but that person says they can't get in contact with the people with the video?

[Malthus]

you are a lot more sophisticated than a Somalian crack dealer

Thanks!

In any case, maybe it's obvious legal-type stuff that's keeping the video from surfacing. I agree that if there's some sort of "we're keeping the money in escrow" proposed the blackmailers are unlikely to deal - though I expect that's independent of the quality of the video. I expect the only deal they'd take is "give us the money and we give you the video" not "we'll let you look at the video and then we'll rely on your word to have the money released to us".

That said, I thought the reported issue was that they can't contact the people with the video, not that they're unable to reach a deal with them?

Escrow is a binding agreement - the money is given to be held by a 3rd party who is obligated to release it if the conditions are met. So it isn't exactly like trusting the guy with the money's word. Escrow has developed exactly to overcome this sort of trust problem. Of course some Somali dudes may not see it like that. 

As far as i know, they can't contact the guys with the video, which I would intepret (assuming that the scenario is correct) as meaning those guys don't wish to deal and don't think they can bargain down the terms concerning safeguards.

[Jacob]

Of course some Somali dudes may not see it like that.

Yeah, that's what I'd expect.

As far as i know, they can't contact the guys with the video, which I would intepret (assuming that the scenario is correct) as meaning those guys don't wish to deal and don't think they can bargain down the terms concerning safeguards.

Certainly a plausible scenario.

[Admiral Yi]

Malthus, you can't possibly be serious. 

[Malthus]

Malthus, you can't possibly be serious. 

About what? 

[Admiral Yi]

About what? 

The escrow account for Somali crack dealers.

[HVC]

Can a lawyer pay out the escrow for an illegal activity. As far as I know taping someone for finacial gain without their knowledge and consent is illegal in Canada.

[Barrister]

Can a lawyer pay out the escrow for an illegal activity. As far as I know taping someone for finacial gain without their knowledge and consent is illegal in Canada.

Only when:

A: you're in circumstances that would give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy; and
B: it's done for a sexual purpose

Not sure about A, but clearly B doesn't apply.

(see s. 162 of the Code)

[Malthus]

Can a lawyer pay out the escrow for an illegal activity. As far as I know taping someone for finacial gain without their knowledge and consent is illegal in Canada.

Is a journalist paying an informant illegal?

The people organizing this sure don't act like they are committing an illegal act - it could not be more public.