Now I am Canadian and all so maybe Civil Law (based on Napoleonic Code in Quebec) maybe different then your British derived Commonlaw but I ask anyways.
If someone who I don't particularily like tells me in MSN that he has 500,000$ in an offshore bank account that he got under the table doing business overseas to avoid having to pay taxes on it (as the current 150k he makes per year has roughly a 60% tax rate on it 40% there and 40% bringing it into Canada). Now say I threatened at some point to report to the Canadian IRS equivilent whatever it is can he sue for slander? Slander to my estimation is merely printing things in public publication that are untrue about a person. And if he could could anything happen of its, lets assume he has something to go on besides my MSN name.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Slander is spreading falsehoods about somone, but they have to prove you KNEW if was false and that you have criminal intent to do their reputation harm...and they have to show damages.
Libel is putting slander in print. There is a difference.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Reporting someone to the authorities is not slander (or libel). Filing a false report is likely illegal and could carry criminal penalties, but I don't think that the person who you are reporting could themselves take any action against you for that.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
The person has given you hear-say evidence that he has committed a crime. I think you have a duty to report that. From then on, it is up to the IRS to determine if there is enough evidence to pursue the matter.
Also, this is one of the most infamous Internet scams in the world. Someone claiming to have tons of money in foreign accounts, but they need help getting it into USA bank. Let them transfer $1,000,000 into your account, and they will let you keep $250,000.
Just one small catch, in order to process the transaction and over some expenses, they need you to send them $2,500. A small price to pay to get 100 times that amount of money back again.
Trouble is, you send $2,500 and never hear from them again.
So, there is plenty of room for criminal activity here. And you're just pointing it out, especially if you can prove this person actually made these statements. For example, copies of email, or transcripts of IM sessions, or discussion groups archives, etc....
Again, your not actually making an accusation or a charge of criminal activity. You are simply making the government aware that this person has made claims of illegal activity.
But, you need to ask yourself a few questions. Do you even remotely believe this guy? And are you motivated by a sense of justice or revenge? You admit you don't like him. Is this your revenge for his having annoyed you, or do you really believe there is a credible chance of criminal activity?
To some extent, people can say anything on the Internet, it is very easy and common to 'role play' while on the Internet; to live out fantasies. If this persons statement are just that, him living out his fantasy on the Internet, then you can't take his statements as credible.
And if you are motivated by revenge, then you are causing trouble that could come back to haunt you.
Best to be sure before you act.
Steve/bluewizard
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
This person has never once offered me money or anything obviously a scam he is one of the fellow players in me and KoM's RTGS Games, he is someone we "know" as being "real".
He had made some statements of thinking of hiring "help" to off a female employee in the Philipines who is trying to blackmail him, this raises some concerns.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Where do you guys FIND these players?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
dumpsters, we feed them rats and poke them to arrive on time.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
A couple of things (all from a common law perspective):
1.) Publication in defamation cases means telling at least one other person. It does not require publication.
2.) One has to look at the statement in evaluating truth. "X participated in a scam" is a very different statement from "X said that he participated in a scam."
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Yeah, dag...one of the things I was getting at was your point 2. If you claim to KNOW he is doing something, you better have proof. You you are reporting what they SAID they did, you have more leeway.
Big difference between the two, legally speaking.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Threatening to kill someone is one thing, but shuffling paper about in a bad way? Don't be a busy body.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
The fact that some guy you know is willing to tell you how much he earns makes me suspect he's just making up numbers to sound cool. I mean seriously. Who makes 150k, still has time to game with you, can't find a good CPA to lower his taxable income, and is so stupid he talks about killing employees?
While I don't doubt that he's told you these things, I don't believe any of them for a minute. However, if you have other information that suggests real fraud or just want to CYA in case he's an eccentric, I found the RCMP site to help you. It's RECOL, Reporting Economic Crime Online.
For all I know, this guy's been under investigation for years and your information is just what they need to finally get that warrant for his bank records. Who knows. Just do your best to remember when he told you what specifically. If you've got any conversations saved online, that might help.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
But if he goes to jail, who'll play India?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
As far as I know, only in the UnitedStates does the truthfulness of the charges made protect one from being found guilty in a defamation case.
If BillClinton had been President of France, he would have won lawsuits against the news media for publishing that he had a sexual encounter Lewinsky. A very recent President or PrimeMinister won a large defamation award when a daily news paper outted a(n open secret) mistress.
In London, an American professor was successfully sued for publishing a book proving that a Holocaust denier's works were full of lies. Admittedly in this particular case, the damage award was limited to £1 ( a little under $2 at the time), but nonetheless she lost for publishing that truth.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You need to check your facts on the last example at minimum. It's wrong about the outcome of the case and it's wrong about the law in England.
Thanks, Dagonee, "remember"ing that "£1 award verdict" has always irked me. Obviously a confabulation, possibly due to mixing with a concurrent defamation trial.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Canada is obviously an English common-law nation, and I believe it is a well established principle in that law that truth is never a slander.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
If you don't actually know of them, I strongly encourage that you do since IIRC, you're working on various summer jobs and the like. Start filing your tax returns. You may get back some money if there was withholding, you will start building up RRSP room, and getting a good record of your student tax credits.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :