ID Thief Tries To Get Witnesses Whacked 168
adeelarshad82 writes "Pavel Valkovich of Sherman Oaks, CA has pleaded guilty to solicitation of murder, admitting that he attempted to hire hit-men to kill witnesses working with Federal authorities in their investigation of Valkovich's ID theft activities and subsequent crimes. According to the Justice Department: '...Valkovich and others had stolen personal identifying information and used that information to transfer funds from victims' bank accounts to PayPal accounts.'"
What. The. Funk? (Score:5, Insightful)
Two things amaze me:
One, that you can get more jail time for moving 440,000 from one DB column to another than for trying to have someone killed.
Two, that actual bankers that committed fraud to the tune of trillions were punished by (at most) being handsomely paid off and sentenced to go golfing for the rest of their lives.
What a strange "justice" system we've created for ourselves.
Re:What. The. Funk? (Score:5, Insightful)
He who owns the system makes the rules. Where's the news?
Pond life (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:What. The. Funk? (Score:3, Insightful)
1- It kinda makes sense, though. I'm sure there's a known monetary value for saving one life, either though medical treatment or better safety. The value may vary in rich vs poor countries, but money = lives (and lives = money, sadly).
2- Indeed. What can we do except witch about it ? Both political parties are equally guilty...
Re:What. The. Funk? (Score:4, Insightful)
It all has to do with HOW you steal it and WHAT you call it. Example:
Typical theft/bank fraud: Jail time
Experimental accounting strategies and strategic investment and pay-rate schedule (aka bank fraud): Golden parachute and another cushy job
Re:What. The. Funk? (Score:5, Insightful)
But wonder what's going on inside the guy's head tho, he acts like he would be in an action movie:
The answer is in the first comment of this thread:
20 years for the murder-for-hire and 30 years for the bank fraud.
==> he just tried to save 10 years of prison time. Had his plot gone through, there would have been no witness for the fraud, and all they could stick with him would be the murder: 20 years, instead of 30!
And this is the reason why it is so dangerous to have laws on the book that carry a penalty that is harsher than for murder...
Re:It wasn't him... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What. The. Funk? (Score:3, Insightful)
The 30 years for fraud is most likely 5 years per sentence * 6 people, or 3 years per sentence * 10 people, etc.
"Copyright theft" and *Identity theft" (Score:5, Insightful)
Those two terms have something in common -- both were trumped up by people with something to hide and would rather misdirect the public about what is going on.
There is no theft of copyright unless someone somehow convinces the registry office that he is the author and owner of the material. It is "infringement" but that word doesn't sound bad or terrible enough to get people excited.
And there is no "Identity theft" either... well, there is when someone is actively out there claiming to be someone else while that someone else is thereafter doubted as to who he is. Not sure that actually happens though. What identity theft really is is fraud perpetrated against banks and other institutions who created a system by which a person is identified by numbers that are shared frequently and openly. I hesitate to call them secret numbers since every time you participate in the system, you surrender nearly all of your personal identification numbers. The system that has been created is EXTREMELY weak and easy to game. It is also extremely easy and inexpensive for banks, financial institutions and shops to use in doing business. And just like the "credit score" system created by the same people, it puts the burden on the individuals rather than on the people who created and use the systems to their advantage every day.
Seriously, what a great system? They collect all of the advantages, and all disadvantages are shifted to individuals!
Banker says, "no, I was not harmed by this guy who fraudulently stole money from my bank...it was the poor schmuck whose bank account information was used! And I'll tell you something else! I'm holding that poor schmuck responsible for my incompetent system!"
Shop keeper says, "no, I was not harmed by this guy who fraudulently stole property from my store... it was the poor schmuck whose credit card numbers or credit information was used in making the purchase... and I'll tell you something else, I'm holding the poor schmuck responsible for paying the bill! And if he doesn't, I'll file bad credit reports and in some states, file in court to have a judgement against him too!"
The weaknesses of the system are clear and obvious. It is also clear and obvious who is being stolen from. By changing the name from fraud to identity theft, they are attempting to make it less clear and obvious who the victim is.
Re:What. The. Funk? (Score:5, Insightful)
he just tried to save 10 years of prison time. Had his plot gone through, there would have been no witness for the fraud, and all they could stick with him would be the murder: 20 years, instead of 30!
Had this plot "gone through" he would have actually been charged with something other than "solicitation of murder", the charge carrying a 20 year sentence. Let's assume the murder charge is worse.
And this is the reason why it is so dangerous to have laws on the book that carry a penalty that is harsher than for murder...
again, the 20 years ... not for ACTUAL MURDER.
Not to mention, Im pretty sure this guy wasn't weighing his jail time options and "settling" for 20 years. I think he wanted to silence the witness(es) and not get caught doing it.
Re:i was called to jury duty once (Score:5, Insightful)
And do you have any amusing anecdotes about other civic duties you dodged such as paying taxes or helping injured people by the side of the road?
Rgds
Damon
Re:i was called to jury duty once (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm waiting for the amusing anecdote about how he was wrongly sued by someone, and a jury of bigoted uneducated idiots found in favor for the plaintiff, because all of the intelligent educated jurors dodged jury duty and then smugly posted about it on Slashdot.
Or maybe the story of how he was wrongfully accused of rape or child abuse, and then a jury of idiots convicted him because all the "smart" people had better things to do with their time than sit in a trial.
It is always interesting to me how the people who complain the loudest about unjust laws and convictions are so often the ones who can't be bothered to participate in the very system that metes out justice to their fellow citizens.
I've only served on one jury in my life. It was a pain in the butt to reschedule my life around it, but I would not hesitate to serve again. If I were wrongfully accused, I would pray that intelligent and educated people in that jury box would listen to facts and not emotional blather when deciding my fate.
What bankers? (Score:2, Insightful)
Which bankers committed trillions of dollars of fraud? I've not heard of this. There have been some billion dollar schemes, Bernard Madoff would be a good example, however he didn't get paid off, he received a 150 year prison sentence for it.
Or are you generally ignorantly ranting about the recent stock market crash? Here's news for you: It wasn't fraud. Fraud has a legal definition, and what Madoff did was fraud. People going hog wild and speculating on stocks, bonds, commodities, whatever is NOT fraud. It's not smart to do, but it is not illegal.
Also let's please drop the "Oh those evil bankers!" crap. This mess has no one party responsible, there is blame at all levels. Government regulators are to blame because they failed to keep an eye on this and keep things from getting out of hand. Investment firms are to blame for investing too readily in something that was clearly growing well past any reasonable rate. Banks are to blame for making loans that were far too high a risk. And people are to blame, for walking eyes wide shut in to this situation, for taking loans they can't afford, for investing in a massive bubble.
Let's not pretend like "the little guy" is innocent here. None of this shit would have happened had normal people not been so eager to get in on this and so willfully oblivious to the risks. Nobody made people take loans they clearly couldn't afford, nobody forced them to refinance all their equity out of their houses to spend on consumables. They chose to do it, and the consequences have been far reaching indeed. However they can't now cry and blame it all on "the bankers." Yep, banks certainly have a big share of responsibility, but so do you, the individual that got yourself in that situation. You did NOT have to do that, you could have been smart about it but you weren't.
The problem is being responsible wasn't as much fun. It meant keeping a smaller, older house, and not getting all kinds of new toys. Ya well, that was the right answer.
So knock it off already.
Re:What. The. Funk? (Score:3, Insightful)
Two things amaze me:
One, that you can get more jail time for moving 440,000 from one DB column to another than for trying to have someone killed.
Two, that actual bankers that committed fraud to the tune of trillions were punished by (at most) being handsomely paid off and sentenced to go golfing for the rest of their lives.
What a strange "justice" system we've created for ourselves.
One. Laws do not get implemented in pairs. That is, legislators do not sit down and say, "umh, what a nice day, let's punish fraud more severely than attempted murder." Also, federal and state laws do not evolve in parallel either. So it is all conceivable that in a union like the US you'll have punishment discrepancies like that. The only fairness you get is the fairness of a fair trail. It is not strange at all. Legislation can (and might or might not) change those punishment discrepancies (for better or worse.) It's not a frozen thing, and it is not strange at all.
Two. Actual bankers did not commit fraud. I know what you are trying to say, BUT, the legal term fraud has a very specific meaning. To assign blame, or to accuse, you need to use the appropriate terms of accusation for it to make sense.
Re:Put the onus on financial institutions (Score:2, Insightful)
I shouldn't be required to prove who I am. There should be a simple form that I can file with a bank, protesting their claim that I am responsible for an account; once filed, the bank has the problem; when filed to try to skip out on an actual account, massive fines, maybe jail time.
Re:What bankers? (Score:5, Insightful)
However, you seem to think that all people fit into one of those categories.
What you've missed is that there are 'little guys' who didn't take out a loan they couldn't afford, and didn't make a loan to some high risk person.
But these 'little guys' are getting screwed because of each of the parties you mentioned. Some of them have been laid off, some have seen their investments brutalized, some are now stuck in their house because their once 80 LTV is now 105 LTV.
These are a larger percentage of those complaining
Not to mention the same 'evil bankers' that made the loans also pushed to get regulations relaxed, which makes them somewhat more responsible as without their reckless behavior this mess
Now these 'little guys' find out their tax dollars are going to the same companies that got us into the mess while these companies also are basically getting free money to make new loans and start back with business as usual.
At least that's what I complain about and I'm one of those 'little guys'
Re:What bankers? (Score:2, Insightful)
I see you've been reading from the neo-conservative talking points memo again.
People who received loans they could not afford are only responsible for their own financially-crushing mortgage on their now-worth-less homes, or for the fact that they have no home at all because they were forced to default on their mortgage. Their responsibility ends there.
You can't blame the mortgage recipients for the bigger picture. That's like blaming the workers on the sales floor or cashiers for the bankruptcy of a store. The fact that there are thousands of people in this situation lies with banks, investors, and government. Each had a responsibility, failed miserably in each of their duties, and turned what should have been a minor problem with a handful of people that could be readily addressed into a major problem that helped tank the economy.
Bonus points: none of them care to fix the system proper, just well enough to shut people up.
Re:What bankers? (Score:3, Insightful)
The recent and ongoing financial collapse was most certainly caused by fraudulent actions. Millions of them.
- Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, and Tim Geitner, for "pursuading" Congress and President Clinton to repeal Glass/Steagall, which enabled the disaster to enfold
- every borrowers who fraudulently claimed income they didn't have, or expected to sell their home at a profit before their subprime or ALT-A mortgage reset to full payments
- lenders fraudulently giving mortgages to borrowers who couldn't document income
- lenders fraudulently giving mortgages to "subprime" and ALT-A borrowers who they knew couldn't pay the full reset payment
- lenders and investment banks fraudulently bundling up said mortgages and selling them to investors as AAA investments - while also shorting the hell out of them in their investment arms (demonstrating that they knew they were going to tank)
- ratings agencies for enabling the AAA ratings on securities they didn't see source documentation for
- AIG and any other company selling CDS they didn't have the equity to back
- every company buying a CDS from a company unable to pay for the sole reason of being able take the "protected" loan off their balance sheet and not count it against leverage limits
- Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke for enabling bubble after bubble with too loose monetary policy, while fraudulently claiming there was no bubble
- Congress, President Bush, and Henry Paulson for presiding over the runup and initiating the failed bailout strategy
- President Obama for hiring Rubin, Summers and Geitner as his economic team to "fix" the problem, bringing us full circle
Hey, and that's only in the US. UK and European banks did all the same things. And let's not even talk about the China bubble. No shortage of fraud to go around.
Re:i was called to jury duty once (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What bankers? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Put the onus on financial institutions (Score:3, Insightful)
You can lend friends money. Just not money you would mind losing.
...or friends you would mind losing.