At what point is it punishable to support a &quot;criminal organisation&quot;? A friend said to me the other day that she was worried that she had supported the the &quot;Last Generation&quot; (&quot;Letzte Generation&quot;) organization financially. The Last Generation often blocks the streets of Berlin and other large cities in Germany to encourage politicians to focus more on climate change. In the past, it has been possible to support the organization through donations to help them afford the legal costs they face after their actions. The background to this is that in Germany the Last Generation organization as a criminal organization because of its activities. As a criminal organization because of its activities. Now my friend is of the opinion that if that were to happen, she would have committed a retroactive offence. Because supporting a criminal organization in Germany is a punishable offence. According to my legal understanding, I would say that an organization that has been retroactively classified as a criminal organisation does not does not mean that it has committed a criminal offence. So that it has nothing to fear here. Am I right?
england-and-wales Short Answer: Paying legal fees for a criminal organisation is not (by my reading of the law) an offence. But if it is, retrospective legislation is prohibited in all but a few situations. Long Answer: There are two issues here: Support for an organised crime group This is an offence contrary to section 45 Serious Crime Act 2015: (1) A person who participates in the criminal activities of an organised crime group commits an offence. (2) For this purpose, a person participates in the criminal activities of an organised crime group if the person takes part in any activities that the person knows or reasonably suspects— (a) are criminal activities of an organised crime group, or (b) will help an organised crime group to carry on criminal activities HOWEVER it seems unlikely that &quot;donations to help them afford the legal costs they face after their actions&quot; would meet the emboldened requirements at subsection 2(b) as it does not appear to be supporting &quot;criminal activities.&quot; That said, each case will be considered on its own merits. Retrospective legislation Generally, this is prohibited under the European Convention on Human Rights, enacted under Article 7 Human Rights Act 1988: No punishment without law 1 No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed. 2 This Article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations. However, paragraph 2 does allow for retrospective legislation if the need arises. For example the War Crimes Act 1991 retrospectively criminalises murder etc committed in Germany or its occupied territories during the second world war. Although tagged germany, I have answered according to the LawSE Help Centre: &quot;we expect and encourage answers dealing with other jurisdictions ... please tag your answer using the tag markdown: [tag: some-tag]&quot;
Lèse majesté is not prosecuted in the UK While it is still technically illegal to advocate the abolition of the monarchy under the Treason Felony Act of 1848, more recent freedom of speech laws means that it is not possible to bring a successful prosecution. The only reason it hasn’t been abolished is that Parliament has better things to do and, since the government doesn’t bring charges under it, the courts can’t quash it. So, the Monarch has the same legal protections as anyone else.
Generally a person can leave money to any person or organization that the testator pleases. In some US states, a minimum portion must be left to family (spouse and/or children). Aside from that, there is no requirement and no exclusions. US law prohibits gifts (and other support) to a few specific organizations which the government has officially listed as terrorist, and I suspect the Taliban is one of these. Gifts by will would be covered by this law just as gifts from a living person. But if a living person in the US can lawfully make a gift to an organization, a similar gift may be left by will. Even if a particular bequest was unlawful, that would not make the will as a whole invalid. Edit: It seems that the Afghan Taliban is not on the list of terrorist organizations maintained by the US, and so there would be no bar to a US citizen leaving money to that group. There would be to groups actually on the list. The general principle above holds.
Under Article 223-6 of the Criminal Code Anyone who, being able to prevent by immediate action a felony or a misdemeanour against the bodily integrity of a person, without risk to himself or to third parties, wilfully abstains from doing so, is punished by five years' imprisonment and a fine of €75,000. The same penalties apply to anyone who wilfully fails to offer assistance to a person in danger which he could himself provide without risk to himself or to third parties, or by initiating rescue operations. Pocket-picking is a special case of theft that violates "bodily integrity"; so this article does seem to create a conditional legal duty to intervene. There does not appear to be a specific law creating a duty to report crimes to the police, but that might be implied by the duty to initiate rescue operations.
This article is from an official Emirates news agency, which confirms the change (Federal Law 12/2016). This is a change to Federal Law 5/2012, replacing Article 9 (the translation into English is odd because the verb phrase goes first). The level of the penalty has increased (minimum 150K → minimum 500K; maximum 500K → 2M). Incarceration is changed from "imprisonment" to "temporary imprisonment", which might mean that previously the term was life. In either case, they have an "and" problem that the punishment is "(temporary) imprisonment and a fine ... or either of these two penalties". Presumably the Arabic version is dispositive. Apart from that, the new version of the law identifies the offender as Whoever uses a fraudulent computer network protocol address (IP address) by using a false address or a third-party address by any other means for the purpose of committing a crime or preventing its discovery whereas the old law only said whoever uses a fraudulent computer network protocol address by using a false address or a third-party address by any other means for the purpose of committing a crime or preventing its discovery. Thus the meaning of "computer network protocol address" is defined as being equivalent to "IP address". In other words, there is no substantive change beyond the stiffer penalty. There does not seem to any provision allowing one to ask for exceptions. Article 30 of the underlying law strongly suggests that there is no exception and you should not ask. On a separate note, only Etisalat and Du are authorized to provide telecommunications services, pursuant to Federal Decree Law No. 3/2003. This article from August 24, 2015 also links to a number of related articles indicating that everything is illegal.
There is no possibility of legally holding a country &quot;to account&quot; for an action. An individual could be legally tried for a crime (murder), and a country could via a political process be made to suffer the consequences if a leader performs some act (it need not be illegal). Germany, Iran and Russia have historically suffered certain consequences of actions held to be &quot;officially sanctioned&quot;, and individuals such as Adolf Eichmann have been specifically punished; Fahad Shabib Albalawi and 4 others were sentanced to death for involvement in Khashoggi's murder. Punitive recourse against a country is always via political / military action. Khashoggi, specifically, was apparently a lawful permanent resident of the US, which is probably sufficient connection to the US for a suit based in the Alien Tort Statute. There have been various suits filed against individuals under this act, some of which succeeded, for example Filártiga v. Peña-Irala, 630 F.2d 876. An individual could be sued under the Alien Tort Statute, but a foreign government enjoys sovereign immunity (the US government has limited its liability on that grounds, but Saudi Arabia has not). His fiance might then sue some individual, but Saudi Arabia itself could not be &quot;held to account&quot;.
The most important rule for an extradition from Germany is this: If the role of the countries were reversed, would the person be convicted in Germany according to German law? You say the link claims that he couldn't be convicted now, because he would have been convicted twice for the same crime. So he wouldn't be convicted in Germany if the roles of the countries were reversed, therefore no extradition. (The next important rule is this: There must be enough evidence that the person would be prosecuted in Germany, not necessarily convicted. You also need to convince the court that the accused will get a fair trial when extradited, that there will be no cruel or unusual punishment, including death sentence, and lastly there is no extradition for small crimes when the extradition plus having to appear in a foreign court can be considered worse punishment than the actual punishment for the crime. All these irrelevant in this case, I think). "Auslieferung unstatthaft" just means "extradition inadmissible" or "extradition illegal". PS. Ludl asked "shouldn't there be some law that if someone cannot be extradited from Germany because of extradition law, they can still be prosecuted in Germany". That would be completely unnecessary. Let's say one US citizen murders another one in Germany, the USA asks for extradition (they wouldn't, because it is a German matter, but they could ask of course), and Germany rightfully refuses. Then since it is a murder on German ground, it will be prosecuted in Germany. It would be absurd to think that a failed extradition request could protect a murderer.
In Germany, had the store not called the police (or paramedics), they would have been charged for not doing so under Section 323c. Other jurisdictions will no doubt have similar laws. On arrival, being informed that you ran away - but thankfully paid with a credit card - the police will try to find you. They are not allowed to make a determination that you are just being foolish, but must assume you are a danger to yourself. At some point in the extensive bureaucratic matter, they will probably come to the conclusion that you have acted in a negligent manner. Once that has been done, you will be made liable for all entailed costs to the taxpayer. So your fear of being charged for threatening to commit suicide is the least of your problems. Your claim against the store is probably justified (the listed price is in most jurisdictions binding). Your reaction to that is not. Section 323c Failure to render assistance; obstruction of persons rendering assistance (1) Whoever does not render assistance in the case of an accident or a common danger or emergency although it is necessary and can reasonably be expected under the circumstances, in particular if it is possible without substantial danger to that person and without breaching other important duties, incurs a penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or a fine. (2) Whoever obstructs a person who is rendering or wishes to render assistance to another person in such a situation incurs the same penalty. Sources: Section 323c - German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch – StGB)