Proceeds of crime

[Super Nova]

Why draw such and arbitrary line there? Where is the logic in doing so? I doubt there is any, but I look forward to hearing any possible explanation.

I think the line should be drawn at the point of principle. No-one should benfit from proceeds of crime.

Therefore, that means no-one. Even relatives that are twice removed.

Now your issue I think is how to implement this in practice.

[Shivaruna]

I disagree. Looking at your proposal. "Noone should benefit from the proceeds of crime."

Very naive to be frank. How many books have been written about for example Ms Corby and her plight? Many of the authors are not related in any way, and they benefit from the proceeds. There is a Women's magazine which sells many of it's issues because a Corby story is included. It is not easy to draw that line.

[Super Nova]

I disagree. Looking at your proposal. "Noone should benefit from the proceeds of crime."

Very naive to be frank. How many books have been written about for example Ms Corby and her plight? Many of the authors are not related in any way, and they benefit from the proceeds. There is a Women's magazine which sells many of it's issues because a Corby story is included. It is not easy to draw that line.

I accept your point that my view is naive.

However the principle still stands.

Without it I could deliberately commit crime with the view to really make my money, or my family members could by the interest in the story.

Journalists writing about it and selling papers/books containing the story is OK. Paying someone for the story is a different matter.

[annielaurie]

I disagree. Looking at your proposal. "Noone should benefit from the proceeds of crime."

Very naive to be frank. How many books have been written about for example Ms Corby and her plight? Many of the authors are not related in any way, and they benefit from the proceeds. There is a Women's magazine which sells many of it's issues because a Corby story is included. It is not easy to draw that line.

I disagree also, mostly for these reasons ^^^^

[Neferti]

That's that then? Everyone agrees to disagree?

[HBS Gay]

I would thertainly do the time for the crime if that'th what you mean mantra! I thee thome young gayboith and feel the thtirring in my lointh and ekthpekt to be arrethted at any time when I go down.

[mantra]

I would thertainly do the time for the crime if that'th what you mean mantra! I thee thome young gayboith and feel the thtirring in my lointh and ekthpekt to be arrethted at any time when I go down.

As long as you don't do it in public and you make sure the boys are 18 or over - you won't get arrested.

[Bart]

There seems to be some controversy surrounding the fee that 60 Minutes has offered the 14 y.o. boy arrested in Bali for buying pot.

If David Hicks wasn't able to keep the payment he received for his book after 6 years of torture - then this kid certainly doesn't deserve payment for an interview. It doesn't send much of a message out there to other teenagers who think they'll get away with something similar and then get rewarded for their crimes.

Gillard has to step in and seize the money. It makes a mockery out of the law.

THE family of the 14-year-old boy on drug charges in Bali has sealed a six-figure deal with Nine Entertainment to tell the story of his arrest and trial.

Sources told The Sun-Herald last night that the deal, worth between $200,000 and $300,000, includes coverage across 60 Minutes, Nine News, and Nine Entertainment's ACP magazines. Nine's managing director, Jeffrey Browne, finalised the deal and it was signed off by the chief executive, David Gyngell. A source confirmed a 60 Minutes team may fly to Bali on Wednesday to film some colour for an interview with the boy and his family – in anticipation that he will be released on Friday.

The celebrity publicist Grant Vandenberg managed the deal, that was signed on Thursday.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv- ... z1d0woMqe8

A lot of proceeds are indirect as well. Whether they pay for an expense, a trip or the person's partner or some other family member or even allowing for a notional rental of property/asset- effectively giving the person that item.
It is wrong. Surely an external auditor should be able to pick these up so that they are all caught.
It is only the blatant and the direct payments that seem to be looked at, scrutinized and captured