Hacker News Reader

Comment by bsder | Hacker News Reader

> Key point: a chunk of the evidence against the thieves was collected via wireless bugging devices.

They continued to talk about it. Mistake, period. Just, no. If I ever do something illegal, I will never talk about it after the fact.

I have even had conversations with friends when I was younger:

"Hey, how did you manage to get away from <place that got busted>?"

"<incredulous look on my face> Why would you even ask me to admit I did something illegal that actually got busted by the police? And, even if I were there, why would you expect me to be stupid enough to answer?"

View on HN

Two things:

1) You're saying this because you're intelligent. But because you're intelligent, you're also less likely to turn to a life of crime. You can make money honestly and you have a lot to lose if you get busted. Crooks tend to be uneducated and ignorant.

2) It's easy to keep a secret that only you know. But there's usually more than one person involved in a crime. Are all of your companions in crime going to be as careful? People just can't resist talking. They want to brag. They want to tell their friends and loved ones. And as time goes on, people let their guard down.

> Crooks tend to be uneducated and ignorant.

Only the ones you've heard about.

Also: Wall Street is full of educated guys who are outright criminals.

> Also: Wall Street is full of educated guys who are outright criminals.

That is "white-collar crime" which is a different thing entirely. It revolves around exploiting the loopholes around laws, rather than actually breaking them. He is talking about "blue-collar crime" which is about outright breaking the laws. In the white crimes, no statesman can punish you since there is no legal evidence against you - the issues are with the legal framework.

There is a lot of white collar crime, vs just stuff people whine about at occupy because it is unfair, which involves breaking rules, laws, etc., but depends on not being able to be detected, identified as a crime, identified as a suspect, located, sufficiently chargeable according to a GJ or civil suit, not meeting evidentiary standard for conviction, pleading to something small, or reward outweighing risk-adjusted cost. (In decreasing order of ideal white collar crime).

As a former auditor, your "no legal evidence" is comically wrong. They own the people that would prosecute them.

Your definition of white-collar crime is way off the mark. White-collar crime is real crime. Fraud, embezzlement, and money laundering are not "loopholes around laws", they are crimes just like murder, larceny, and rape. The government brings prosecutions all the time, and there are plenty of white-collar criminals in prison and paying hefty fines.

The absence of violence (murder, rape, assault, robbery, etc.) or physical force against property (burglary, grand theft auto, etc.) is what defines a white-collar crime. They involve abuses of trust. "White-collar" just refers to the fact that people in white-collar professions are typically the ones have enough power entrusted to them to be able to commit these crimes.

Of course, there's no perfect taxonomy and you can argue all day about whether a particular crime is white-collar or blue-collar.

One aspect of the difference is that the physical force and violence with white collar crime are indirect / externalized, because the crimes involve manipulation of intangibles.

I don't think that's generally true - 'white collar crime' is used to refer to bankers etc. breaking the law. It's just a) hard to prosecute and b) the politicians are unmotivated to pursue it as it's their mates c) it's often institutional, eg HSBC was involved in money laundering but which individuals do you go after? If you're just looking as using loop holes probably most do that and would be annoyed it you call them criminals.

White-collar crime is also fundamentally different from violent crime and larceny, since it doesn't involve the use of physical force or violence. It's good to have the government protect people against abuses of trust, but it's secondary to protecting people against violence and theft.

Your understanding is completely incorrect.

White collar crime is real, actual crime and violation of real, actual laws. It refers to non-violent, financially motivated crimes. But they're real crimes.

> Crooks tend to be uneducated and ignorant.

While this is true in the general, there is (at least in Australia) a number of crooks I've come across when I was younger and doing things you shouldn't do that were incredibly intelligent; which is why they had others commit crimes for them, and were suitably paranoid. And were rarely caught. I assume that's likely the case in most places around the world.

Are you really safer if you get other people to commit crimes for you? Seems like they'll pretty much always roll over on you unless you're part of an organization that can make them pay a price for doing so.

> If I ever do something illegal, I will never talk about it after the fact.

Dostoyevsky's "Crime and Punishment" should be a compulsory read for any self-respecting criminal mastermind, if anything to stop them from saying "I will never do X and they will never catch me".

They should also read the Evil Overlord List if they aspire to become a criminal mastermind and not just a petty thief:

http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html

> if anything to stop them from saying "I will never do X and they will never catch me".

There is a big difference between "I won't talk about my crime after the fact and make catching me easy" and "Not talking about my crime means they will never catch me."

I'm not stupid--arrogance is the downfall of many a criminal. If I commit a crime, there will be smart people trying to get me. No action will guarantee that I would never be caught. However, I can make it a lot more difficult for someone trying to catch me if I try not to do patently stupid things like actively confessing to someone.

It seems they wanted to get caught to show off and get publicity to further that.

It was a pretty impressive heist but the after-execution flopped like a plane made out of mercury.

They gambled on the courts not prosecuting old-timers for compassionate reasons.

Yet, the coolest thief/ves wouldn't have let themselves be caught and would be basking on a warm tropical island they own.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com