Ask me about financial success to spending 2 years state prison

[BaldElephant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well according to op, he didn't know that he was involved in any illegal activity.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not really a valid defense you know...

[/ QUOTE ]


Someone not knowing, hence not displaying the element of criminal intent doesn't count for anything as a defense?

[/ QUOTE ]


Concurrence: [ QUOTE ]
In Western jurisprudence, concurrence, (or contemporaneity or simultaneity), is the apparent need to prove the simultaneous occurrence of both actus reus ("guilty action") and mens rea ("guilty mind"), to constitute a crime; except in crimes of strict liability. In theory, if the actus reus does not hold concurrence in point of time with the mens rea then no crime has been committed.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, that's interesting stuff. I didn't know about that, because you always hear that "ignorance is not a valid defense". But, it appears more complicated than that:

[ QUOTE ]
Under U.S. criminal law, the general rule is that ignorance of the law or a mistake of law is not a valid defense to criminal prosecution.[7] However, there are exceptions to that rule. Some U.S. criminal statutes provide for what are known as "specific intent" crimes, where ignorance of the law may be a valid defense. The criminal tax statutes in the Cheek case are example of statutes for specific intent crimes, where actual ignorance of the law is a valid defense.[8]

[/ QUOTE ]
Wikipedia

So, you might be right in this case...