If it can be proven that someone profiting from spreading conspiracy theories doesn&#39;t believe in them are they guilty of fraud? There are a number of people and websites that make money by spreading conspiracy theories and other 'fake news'. I think InfoWars is probably the most notorious, but it's only one of a multitude of similar sites and people out there. Let's say for now we have definitive proof that the person hosting a site that spreads conspiracy theories does not believe their theories are true, say they are recorded making fun of their watchers for believing the nonsense they say, including explicitly saying they make it up because people will pay to hear it. If this person benefits only from advertising from people watching their site, are they in any way guilty of fraud by telling people something they didn't believe to get ad revenue? In another example let's say they had a close relationship with a group that profited more directly from the conspiracy theory. Say they are spreading the dinar revaluation theory (the claim that the US is going to, somehow, try to repair Iraq's dinar currency by elevating it from its near-worthless current state back to what it was worth prior to 9/11, for some reason. Thus, supposedly, one should buy up dinar now before the US suddenly increases its value to 100 times its current value). Say after the person preaches about how much it makes sense for the dinar to be raised by the government they then point everyone to a website that sells dinar, at a huge markup, and in exchange the person receives some kickbacks or other benefits for recommending the site. Would the person be guilty of fraud for spreading a conspiracy theory that encouraged people to make a bad financial investment they would benefit from?
Let's say for now we have definitive proof that the person hosting a site that spreads conspiracy theories does not believe their theories are true, say they are recorded making fun of their watchers for believing the nonsense they say, including explicitly saying they make it up because people will pay to hear it. I'm guessing you're asking if this is 'wire fraud'. I expect that if the advertised offer is that &quot;people will pay to hear it&quot;, then so long as they actually hear it, that's not fraud. It would be different if people paid to hear it and then they failed to deliver what people wanted—if they didn't hear what they had paid for. If the customers are satisfied, it doesn't matter how the seller values it. Different people can legitimately value the same goods/services differently. A salesperson selling fairy unicorn dolls to little girls does not have to believe in fairies themselves. It is also highly dangerous for the purposes of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Belief to set any sort of 'truth' standard on what is allowed to be said. Who gets to decide 'the truth'? Authoritative sources are sometimes wrong. New discoveries can sometimes contradict a widespread 'common sense' orthodoxy, and sound crazy. The Earth is spinning around the sun. Time passes at different rates for different people depending on how fast you move. If you think a claim is wrong, the proper response is to present the evidence and argument you think proves it wrong, not try to silence it or punish it. That only drives it underground, where the glamour of being persecuted and the absence of contrary arguments only makes it stronger and more persuasive. And there are always other people who think many of our beliefs are false and crazy! We don't want to be persecuted for wrongthink ourselves. Tolerance for and a listening openness to differing beliefs, even beliefs we hold in contempt, makes our own beliefs safer and more secure. As Noam Chomsky put it: &quot;If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.&quot; If we don't grant freedom of belief to other people, why should they grant it to us? It's probably also worth noting that this isn't &quot;definitive proof&quot;, as they may instead be lying when they say they don't believe it. Somebody who believes in conspiracy theories may deny it in conversation with someone (e.g., an employer or a friend or family member) who would treat them negatively if they were discovered to 'believe in conspiracy theories'. &quot;No, of course I don't believe in banned religion X/heretical politics Y! It's all a load of nonsense!&quot; The same goes for any socially unacceptable heresy. People who are commonly persecuted for their beliefs frequently hide them.
Fraud involves gain. It does not have to be financial gain. By the way, he's probably right about free education etc. to some extent - as the father he will be (partially) responsible for child support.
First of all, this assumes that the debt consolidation firm would be willing to buy, and the CC company willing to sell. With a trial already scheduled, this might well not be the case. Secondly, when (if) the debt consolidation firm buys the debt, they buy the rights of the seller. In many states the trial could go forward, with the debt consolidation firm substituted as plaintiff. It is not automatic that a sale of the debt would postpone the legal case. Certainly if this happened once, it seems very unlikely that a second debt consolidation firm would buy the debt from the first. And as the comments by Moo and ohwilleke suggest, such a scheme would be fraudulent and criminal, if discovered. It might also constitute contempt of court for intentionally abusing the process of the court. Not a good or safe idea.
In the US, it is not illegal to lie in general. This includes lying about someone: it's not illegal per se to lie about them. What is illegal is slander and libel: lying about someone in a way that hurts their reputation. The defamation doctrine in the US is generally a common-law doctrine (i.e. the rules and limits are based on court decisions, rather than on laws passed by legislatures), although it may differ state-by-state. Depending on the state, some defamation may be criminal; there is no federal criminal defamation. US defamation law is largely defined through its interaction with the First Amendment. While libel is not constitutionally protected, punishment for libel is seriously limited by the need to avoid either punishing protected speech, or chilling potential protected speech (i.e. discouraging people from saying something that would in fact be protected, because they aren't sure whether or not it's protected). Libel in the US only applies to a false statement of fact, or an opinion which implies some false fact. If it can't actually be proven incorrect, it can't be libelous in the US. The question of whether it's a statement of fact doesn't just depend on the literal speech; it includes things like the context, and is a question about what a reasonable person would think. If I were to claim that someone was "literally Hitler," for instance, no reasonable person would think I was seriously claiming that the person was the former leader of Nazi Germany. Now, no reasonable person who is familiar with Twitter would ever assume that the tweet meant Obama literally stood up in front of the UN and said "Please accept this nothingburger in place of a respectable climate plan." So, it only counts as libel if a reasonable person would think it implies some fact. But a reasonable person familiar with Twitter would most likely think Miesel is saying "The president's pollution plan is a pointless piece of political puffery planned to placate principalities and potentates." This is basically a matter of opinion. Even to the extent that it's not a matter of opinion, public figures in the US cannot win a defamation suit unless they show "actual malice:" the speaker must actually know or actually strongly suspect that their statement is false in some material way. It's not enough that a reasonable person would think "this might not be true;" the speaker themselves must doubt the truth of it (they must be reckless, not just negligent). Courts are also extremely deferential to defendants in these cases. While it is technically possible for a public figure to prove defamation, it is exceptionally difficult. If the person didn't know they were falsely attributing the quote, and honesty thought it was correct, they're in the clear. If the quote isn't supposed to be a statement of fact, but it implies false facts, but the speaker honestly thinks those facts are true, they're in the clear. Private figures don't have to meet the actual malice standard to prove defamation. They still need to show that the statement is a statement of fact or something implying false facts; if it's obviously a summary of something they really said, possibly with added editorial comment, they can't prove defamation.
In the UK it is an offence to cause a computer to gain unauthorised access to any program or data held in any computer (s1 Computer Misuse Act 1990). It seems likely that other European jurisdictions have similar laws. Certainly Germany does: Penal Code 202a data espionage (German text - English translation). (I mention Germany because the linked thread does.) It might constitute theft in the jurisdiction if the finder did not take reasonable steps to find the owner - which may include informing the police of the find. Depending on the jurisdiction it might count as 'treasure' or abandoned property such that the finder is obliged to inform the authorities (the jurisdiction has the presumption of ownership of abandoned or lost property - e.g. Scotland), which then decide what to do with it. Legally speaking it seems to me that, to declare it legal, we have to get over such hurdles. [edit] There seems to be some dispute in the comments that cryptocurrency is subject to any regulation, counts as property, is something of value or is something that is owned and can be stolen, such that the person in the questioner's scenario could be held to account under the law for his behaviour. Aren't they merely numbers? No - plainly they do have value because people trade them with currency and goods and services. The UK's tax authority, HMRC, "does not consider cryptoassets to be currency or money" but sees them as having economic value because "they can be 'turned to account' - for example, exchanging them for goods, services, fiat currency (that is money declared by a government to be legal tender) or other tokens". They are "a new type of intangible asset". Individuals are liable "to pay UK tax if they are a UK resident and carry out a transaction with their tokens which is subject to UK tax". They are liable for "Income Tax and National Insurance contributions on cryptoassets which they receive from their employer as a form of non-cash payment [or from] mining, transaction confirmation or airdrops." (HMRC cryptoassets for individuals) Are they property? Something that can be owned, something that can be dishonestly appropriate (i.e. stolen)? That's the interesting dispute. Recently, the High Court of England and Wales ruled in a bitcoin ransomware-related case that "for the purpose of granting an interim injunction in the form of an interim proprietary injunction ... crypto currencies are a form of property capable of being the subject of a proprietary injunction". In that judgment there is some discussion of the authorities for considering or deciding they are property. ([2019] EWHC 3556 (Comm)) read from para 50 if not the whole judgment. In at least two other cryptocurrency-related cases the High Court treated the cryptocurrency as property. Vorotyntseva v Money-4 Limited, trading as Nebeus.com [2018] EWHC 2598 (Ch) and Liam David Robertson v Persons Unknown 2019. There was also a suggestion in the comments that the police would not understand and would not be interested. But there are several jurisdictions where people have been investigated, arrested, prosecuted and convicted of crimes relating to cryptocurrencies. A simple internet search for bitcoin theft, fraud or money laundering will result in some reports. In any case their interest or lack of it is irrelevant to what the law may say.
You have been scammed - report this to the police. There is little to no chance this person will ever be found or that if they are that you will get your bitcoins back from them. On the plus side, for the bargain price of $9,500 you have learned never to trust a cheque until it is cleared. You do, however, have avenues with your bank. You can ask Westpac what redress they will make. You can make a formal complaint to their complaints department. You can then go to the Financial Ombudsman Service. Legally, I don't think you have a leg to stand on as your releasing goods on the basis of a pending cheque is your own idiocy, however, the bank may make some redress as a commercial decision to a loyal customer.
Obviously, it's not simply illegal to have a business that exchanges currency - legal currency exchanges do exist, after all. But you'd have to be careful if you wanted to open a business that does this. According to 31 CFR 1010.100, you are considered a "dealer in foreign exchange", and thus a "money services business", and thus a "financial institution", if you are: A person that accepts the currency, or other monetary instruments, funds, or other instruments denominated in the currency, of one or more countries in exchange for the currency, or other monetary instruments, funds, or other instruments denominated in the currency, of one or more other countries in an amount greater than $1,000 for any other person on any day in one or more transactions, whether or not for same-day delivery. You are not considered a "money services business" if you do this "on an infrequent basis and not for gain or profit", but you say you want to "open a business" that does this, so this exemption wouldn't apply to you. If you are considered a financial institution, then you must comply with all sorts of anti-money-laundering regulations, including, for example, verifying the identity of your customers, and filing reports with the US Treasury. You would definitely want to hire a lawyer to guide you through the requirements.
It depends partly on where you are. If you're in the foreign country and they have a law compelling you to answer any questions asked by their government or some company, they you have to answer the question. Whether lying has any legal repercussions depends on the laws of the country, so you'd have to narrow it down a bit. If you're in the US, the only context where you can be compelled to answer a question is when ordered to do so in court (giving testimony), and you have 5th Amendment immunity from being forced to testify against yourself. If you are granted immunity from prosecution, then they can compel you to testify (answer the question). If a foreign entity asks you whether you are a US citizen, you can decline to answer. You can also make up any answer you want, and generally not run afoul of US law (though you could run into problems in that country). There are state and federal laws about making false statements in official investigations, which would not be applicable to what you describe. There is no general law that says you must always tell the truth. However, making a false statement could be part of the crime of fraud, so it would depend on the context of your statement, i.e. are you misrepresenting your citizenship in order to get something of value. In light of the topical update, again there may be country-specific penalties in country for lying about citizenship, and tax evasion is against the law here, which is true whether or not you lie. FATCA specifies a duty to disclose (sect. 6038d), which is not tied to truthful reporting of citizenship (in other words, there is no point in lying to the bank because non-reporting is still a crime). But: this law probably brings the lie with the scope of 18 USC 1001 ("Martha's Law"), which makes it a crime to conceal a material fact "in any matter within the jurisdiction of ...the United States". This means and has been held to mean not just that you can't lie to federal officers, you can't lie to anyone who reports your information to the federal government. FATCA also says "we don't care if it's a crime to report being an American in that country", so inconveniences certainly are not a defense.