Hacker News Reader

IANAL

My understanding is that proof of intent to break the law is not the legal standard needed to move forward with prosecution[0]. It's being used as cover for insufficient political will to prosecute a powerful protected class - Wall Street executives.

https://www.leagle.com/decision/199634380f3d2631296 § II A

View on HN

IANAL too, but believe that in common law systems like the U.K. and most of the U.S. that intent is required. In the jargon: Mens Rea is required in addition to Actus Rea. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

That isn’t always true for certain laws that create “strict liability” which removes the requirement to prove intent: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability

Reply on news.ycombinator.com