If operating z library is their only "crime" I wish the couple luck and thank them for their service. Hard to say what the money laundering charges are about though
back
5 comments
Apparently z-library received user donations and at some point used that donated money to make purchases intended to promote the carrying on of unlawful activities, probably buying hardware or services relating to the operation of z-library, which qualifies as money laundering. Even though it doesn't fit the normal conception of money laundering (hiding the source of illegal money) it still falls under the same law.
> In or about and between January 2018 and November 2022, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants ANTON NAPOLSKY, also known as "Anton Napolskiy," and VALERJIA ERMAKOVA, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to conduct one or more financial transactions in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, to wit: deposits, withdrawals and transfers of funds and monetary instruments, which transactions in fact involved the proceeds of specified unlawful activity, to wit: criminal copyright, as alleged in Count One, in violation of Title 17, United States Code, Section 506(a)(1)(A), and wire fraud, as alleged in Counts Three and Four, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343 (collectively, the "Specified Unlawful Activities"), knowing that the property involved in the transactions represented the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, with intent to promote the carrying on of the Specified Unlawful Activities, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(a)(l)(A)(i).
That's absolutely fucked. Literally just piling on crimes with the intent of ruining someone's life.
Ever watched The Wire?
Discussing federal prosecutions, specifically, they talk about something known in slang as “the head-shot” for federal investigators and prosecutors: finding that someone took a loan from an associate, then used that money to secure a bank loan (a mortgage, say) while misrepresenting the loaned money as their own, then later paid the money back (making it clear, in the paper trail, that it was in fact a loan).
It’s very easy to understand, easy to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, it’s fraud, and it’s a great entry to comb through the books looking for more crimes.
“Something every kid does with their parents to buy their first home”, one Baltimore cop observes.
You shouldn't get your worldview from a TV show. Such a scheme can only be used for pre-approval, to prove you can later make a down payment, not to secure an actual loan.
Yes? Exactly? How is this a correction? Doing this means misrepresenting the amount of debt you have, in order to get a loan you’d not otherwise manage to secure. It can happen on larger scales or for business purposes, too, home mortgages are just how (lots and lots of) normal people commit that particular crime.
The parts of the show I have some real-world understanding of are remarkably observant and accurate. I’m inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt for parts I’m less familiar with.
My point was simply that financial crimes, including some really common ones that often go un-prosecuted until suddenly it matters, are often components of federal cases. Piling on stuff like that, or using them for early charges to secure warrants for further investigation or to gain leverage, is fairly normal. I chose a high-quality pop culture reference to illustrate that because… that’s an effective way to communicate.
How does a temporary loan lead to approval (not a pre-approval, subject to final approval later)? What percent of kids do you estimate receive such fraudulent loans from their parents?
> How does a temporary loan lead to approval (not a pre-approval, subject to final approval later)?
When it’s passed off as a gift.
> What percent of kids do you estimate receive such fraudulent loans from their parents?
I dunno, but it’s pretty common. Maybe unknown in SES levels either too low (no money to loan) or too high (no fraud, because it’s actually a gift) but it’s common.
More and more TV shows these days are realistic as FUCK And inspired by reality. The Wire Especially
i would not put "these days" and the wire in the same paragraph but otherwise I agree. For most if not all of David Simons content.
What? You just report the money to the lender as a gift from parents, you can't pretend the money is yours even if you wanted to because the banks ask for years of bank statements in order to verify your income. When they see a giant injection of cash that wasn't reported they'll demand that you explain it.
Yes, you report it as a gift. If you later pay it back, you committed fraud.
[edit] to clarify what may be a point of confusion:
Rich parents are often in a position to comfortably gift their kid(s) tens of thousands of dollars for their first down payment.
Non-rich parents are more often in a position to somewhat-uncomfortably “gift” that money. It’s a gift on paper, but it’s actually a loan and they need the money back eventually (maybe for the next-oldest kid to borrow for the same purpose, lol). That’s when it’s fraud.
Definitely not.. they can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt it was a loan originally.
You agree it’s illegal (it is) but don’t think it can be proven?
“Here are bank records showing the defendant received $5,000 dollars. Here are further records that show payments back to the person who sent the original $5,000. They occur over a span of eleven months. Eight transactions are for $500, one is for $450, and a later one is for $550, totaling $5,000. Only one month in this otherwise contiguous span—December—is skipped, with no payment occurring. Mr. [defendant], was this $5,000 in fact a loan?”
You’d have reasonable doubt?
What they did to Aaron Swartz.
Never forget
It's amazing how much the Feds work to catch up some internet pirates. Maybe when they catch all of them, they will have time to investigate Epstein client list....
They work to protect businesses... which explains these priorities
The CIA is pulling rank they don't want their control over those individuals on the list, built up over decades, to be burned
Z-lib is making Epstein clients lose money
Welcome to federal prosecution!
That might've happened here:
http://loginzlib2vrak5zzpcocc3ouizykn6k5qecgj2tzlnab5wcbqhem...
Z-library was literally pay for download site.
No, it wasn't. You had a daily quota of 10 free downloads per day.
As nobody reads more then 10 books each day, it was effectively free.
After the 10 downloads you'd have to pay, but get effectively unlimited access after.
> Hard to say what the money laundering charges are about though
US federal prosecutors use a very expansive definition of “money laundering”. Basically, any financial transaction made with funds considered to be “proceeds of crime” can result in a money laundering charge. Contrary to the traditional definition of “money laundering”, there doesn’t need to be any attempt by the defendant to obscure the origin of the funds. All that is required is the defendant knew (at times in a rather loose sense of “know”) the connection between the funds and the underlying crime
Basically all money in circulation is prior proceeds of crime (and also will soon be going back to crime) and all reasonable lukewarm IQ people know this. It's such a chicken shit law.
He is actually wrong, that isn't what the law says. The reason its illegal in this instance is because their transactions related to carrying on a crime (they used user donations to pay for maintaining the site). Per the indictment they are charged under Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(a)(1)(A)(i) which states:
> (a)(1) Whoever, knowing that the property involved in a financial transaction represents the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, conducts or attempts to conduct such a financial transaction which in fact involves the proceeds of specified unlawful activity—
> (A)(i) with the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity;
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1956
You can read the entire code but it criminalizes 2 main categories of conduct. Knowingly using the proceeds of a crime to promote the carrying on of a crime. And knowingly using the proceeds of a crime in a transaction that attempts to conceal the source of the proceeds. So even if you assume all money is the proceeds of a crime this law would not apply to you as long as you don't use it to commit any crimes yourself and you don't attempt to hide where you got it.
You're correct, but I think most reasonable people would find that statute wildly overbroad. By this logic you could charge a weed dealer who buys a bus ticket from home to downtown (where they habitually sell weed) with money laundering. Hell, you could charge them for missing the bus.
> You can read the entire code but it criminalizes 2 main categories of conduct. Knowingly using the proceeds of a crime to promote the carrying on of a crime. And knowingly using the proceeds of a crime in a transaction that attempts to conceal the source of the proceeds. So even if you assume all money is the proceeds of a crime this law would not apply to you as long as you don't use it to commit any crimes yourself and you don't attempt to hide where you got it.
I agree that the way I explained the law was less than completely accurate. But I was talking about money laundering charges as add-on charges. Your "as long as you don't use it to commit any crimes yourself" is unlikely to apply to a defendant who is getting a money laundering charge as an add-on rather than the sole charge.
Theoretically, you might commit a crime, and draw proceeds from that crime, and never use those proceeds in any way to further the commission of the underlying crime – but in practice that doesn't seem particularly likely. An enterprising prosecutor is going to come up with some explanation of how you used the proceeds to further the criminal enterprise which produced them – e.g. you used the money to buy a car, and then you went on a crime-related car trip; you used the money to buy a phone, and then you made a crime-related phone call; etc – and once the jury is convinced you are guilty of the underlying criminal conduct, they'll be primed to believe the prosecutor's explanation. Especially since the law doesn't require the prosecution to prove that you actually used the proceeds to further the criminal enterprise, only that you intended to.
'Defendant bought a new shirt, obviously with intent to impress his clients and expand the scope of his criminal enterprise.'
It's absolute bullshit because the crime (copyright violation) had not been proven at the time of the transaction, and without that, how does one know they're violating copyright vs. exercising fair use rights?
It's almost circular logic.
Like all elements of all crimes charged, it has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
>Like all elements of all crimes charged, it has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
What has to be proven?
That they got money and used it to fund the operation isn't in question.
Agreed. The world needs a global free library whether or not the law permits it. People deserve access to knowledge first and foremost.
Probably for collecting donations and moving them through the SWIFT banking system.
Wouldn't this just force future operators of z-library and similar services to accept donations in crypto only, making it even harder to shut down?
I mean imagine if you took donations for some mundane fan art patreon website that ends up violating US copyright laws and you used the proceeds to buy yourself Subway sandwich and a new laptop to create copyrighted art, you are labelled a money launderer.
doesn't such draconian ruling end up driving these type of services deeper underground and closer to actual money laundering which only leads to more proliferation and opacity?
I don't think crypto wpuld help in this instance, they'd still have to turn it into fiat to do anything with it.
That's hard to trace if using monero however
Same here. If they should ever show up at my doorstep (very unlikely though) I would gladly hide them for as long as they need to.
This is laughable, there are killers, syndicate bosses, drug dealers and human traffickers out there on the run, maybe the prosecutors should get their priorities a bit in order...