As noted in the paragraph Doug linked to, the act must be done 'willfully'. So if the jerk behind the counter won't allow you to do things according to regulations, you're probably not to blame.

uh, I think "willfully" generally means "of his own volition," as in KG held a pen and wrote "audio tape device" all by himself. On the other hand, "not of his own volition" would require, for example, the jerk holding KG from behind with one hand and guiding KG's hand with his other hand to write those words (preferbally KG should be passed-out from some intoxication).

Can we all get back to more "meehh" impressions?

There is a thread for you on the other forum currently growing at 10 pages per day. Enjoy!

uh, I think "willfully" generally means "of his own volition," as in KG held a pen and wrote "audio tape device" all by himself. On the other hand, "not of his own volition" would require, for example, the jerk holding KG from behind with one hand and guiding KG's hand with his other hand to write those words (preferbally KG should be passed-out from some intoxication).

What law school did you attend? Generally, "willful" is not the same as "voluntary," and indeed implies some intent to defraud.

Also, your understanding of fraud is incorrect. Earlier, you said "Can you really commit fraud when the person . . . didn't know . . . he[] was being defrauded?" In fact, that's the very definition of fraud -- an intentional misrepresentation that the other party reasonably relied on. If the person being defrauded knew about the fraud, then his reliance would be unreasonable.

uh, I think "willfully" generally means "of his own volition," as in KG held a pen and wrote "audio tape device" all by himself. On the other hand, "not of his own volition" would require, for example, the jerk holding KG from behind with one hand and guiding KG's hand with his other hand to write those words (preferbally KG should be passed-out from some intoxication).

Or deliberate, fully considered.

The very act of signing the document with those exact words was of course deliberate, but as I read it the clerk had only a very limited list of terms he would accept. If Kevin had wrtten "ridiculously expensive DAC" the clerk wouldn't have accepted it, and the package wouldn't have moved an inch closer to Iceland. Only option then left was to use the accepted term closest to a factual description. As such the "lie" wasn't done freely or willfully, though admittadly, not at gun point either.

Again, I'm not a lawyer so this could all be just gibberish, but I find the thought experiments interesting.

What law school did you attend? Generally, "willful" is not the same as "voluntary," and indeed implies some intent to defraud.

Just wikied MPC and your answer is closer to being correct than mine, at least under the US/common law system. Well, never a bad opportuninty to brush-up on something I have no use of.

Also, your understanding of fraud is incorrect. Earlier, you said "Can you really commit fraud when the person . . . didn't know . . . he[] was being defrauded?" In fact, that's the very definition of fraud -- an intentional misrepresentation that the other party reasonably relied on. If the person being defrauded knew about the fraud, then his reliance would be unreasonable.

That was suppose to be a "tree in the forest" joke - I guess meaning lost in the intraweb traffic.

BTW, you sound like a douche law student.

To say I'm defrauding the state of something they are due has to be one of the most retarded arguments I've ever read. The simple fact is that the whole customs structure here is as unfair and unjust as they come and run by people who should be taken out back and shot. Take for instance the ubiquitous ipod. They are by far the most expensive in the world here and the only reason is an extra 30% tax since you technically have the option to record with these things so they class it as a sound recorder. The iphone on the other hand has no tax (besides the 25.5% vat) yet has all of the same features plus being a phone. There are around 90,000 ipods in circulation here but only 15000 were sold in Iceland. The lost VAT alone dwarfs what is gained by that 30% tax yet they won't back down and change it. Ohh and the real clincher, anything that is not an Apple ipod yet has all the same features isn't taxed with that extra 30% tax...

Another example which I was told about last week. So this company imports wood burning stoves and classifies them as heating appliances. That's what they are used for in our cold climate and they are very popular in all the houses we have scattered around the country side. Years pass with no problem and then somebody from customs sees this and decides wood burning stoves are for cooking and thus have to carry an extra 25% tax. When pressed for how this was a stove for cooking and not for heating they claimed it couldn't be used as a heater since it didn't have anything connected to it that distributed the heat to surrounding areas. IR rays apparently don't count and the company was forced to pay that 25% tax on every unit they had sold over a 4 year span. One can also buy an oil filled stove which is plugged into the mains to give some extra heat (so it does exactly the same as the wood burning stove) and there is no tax on that...

One more... TV's are considered a luxury item in the customs laws and carry a 30% tax (same as audio gear) yet if one goes bankrupt then TV's are considered a necessity and it is illegal to seize it to pay ones debts.

To say that everybody cheats would be an understatement and it is on both sides of "the law". Why this stuff isn't fixed in a nation of 300.000 is beyond me though. Perhaps I should give our lesbian PM a call and talk to her about it. It's not like she isn't related to me or anything...

BTW, you sound like a douche law student.

You sound like a douche newbie.

BTW, you sound like a douche law student.

Nah, a douche lawyer.

You sound like a douche newbie.

Please describe in no less than 498.5 and no more than 498.9 words why you believe that statement is true. Thank you.

Please describe in no less than 498.5 and no more than 498.9 words why you believe that statement is true. Thank you.

Too busy. You figure it out.

Whoah, that is silly stupid.

I would have thought EEA regulations to limit these sort of things? I mean in the spirit of fair competition and stuff.

Edited October 26, 201114 yr by limp

He's got a week to think about it

Oh my.

When I posted the initial post that started this whole mess, I did not think I was accusing anyone of fraud -- I really thought KG was bragging that he had done it willfully. I like KG, I was just calling him out and giving him a hard time. (The second post is, admittedly, a little more serious.)

So here is how this actually went down.

With the clarification, it is certainly a different story. And, one I am quite sympathetic to. So, can we call it a misunderstanding and let it go?

Your "fraud is fraud" argument is weak, and I'm one of the guys who usually quietly supports you on here.

If you think my argument is weak, you should say so. I don't take it as a personal attack. I don't agree, but that's OK. I have made plenty of weak arguments in my life.

I have quiet support?

To say I'm defrauding the state of something they are due has to be one of the most retarded arguments I've ever read. The simple fact is that the whole customs structure here is as unfair and unjust as they come and run by people who should be taken out back and shot. Take for instance the ubiquitous ipod.

It is, ironically, one of the best arguments for why fraud is such a social problem. It erodes trust in public institutions that are necessary for the maintenance of functioning societies.

Apparently you cannot let it go, which you should imo.

If you think my argument is weak, you should say so.

Well I thought that's what I just did.

I have quiet support?

Some others here tend to oppose most everything you say. I tend to like having differing opinions, especially when they're intelligently argued, as yours usually are. Though I tend to refrain from posting in the really heated threads, especially when my knowledge base is next to nil.

Edited October 26, 201114 yr by swt61

^ x2

Strangely this thread is getting more similar to the HF one.

You guys got an "Occupy Reykjavik" thing going yet?

Evidently. They are very well behaved.

Evidently, they think those yellow daisies should run the financial system in Iceland.

The problem we have is being a nation of alcoholics that are easily distracted so when Saturday night rolls around we all get absolutely shitfaced and forget all our worries. We also just don't give a fuck about pretty much anything. One of the things that amazes my expat friend Stuart isn't that we have a lesbian prime minister who is married to her wife in a church, no the astounding part to him is that nobody seems to care one bit about this. She is by far the worst PM we've ever had so plenty of opposition from pretty much everybody yet this is never brought up in a negative light.

Yellow daisies probably could do a better job.

They just sit in the open and look nice.

They don't make bad decisions which ruin peoples' lives......

The problem we have is being a nation of alcoholics that are easily distracted so when Saturday night rolls around we all get absolutely shitfaced and forget all our worries. We also just don't give a fuck about pretty much anything.

Wow, I have an Icelandic patient who said exactly this about his homeland. I always just figured it was because he was depressed. I guess he was just stating a fact.

uh, I think

No one gives a shit what you think.