Robber's gun a deductible expense

maximus otter

maximus otter

Joined
Jul 20, 2002
Messages
4,187
Robber's gun a deductible expense

By David Rennie in Brussels
(Filed: 26/01/2005)

A bank robber has been allowed to claim the £1,400 cost of the gun he used as a legitimate business expense.

The 46-year-old criminal was able to set the price of the pistol against his gross proceeds of £4,700, which he stole in the southern Dutch town of Chaam.

Jailing him for four years, the judge at Breda criminal court reduced his fine by that amount.

The Dutch prosecutors' service said yesterday that the judge had followed sound legal precedents.

Leendert De Lange, a spokesman, said: "You can compare criminal acts to normal business activities, where you must invest to make profits, and thus you have costs."

Therefore drug dealers would be within their rights to claim the cost of a car used to ferry the drugs around, he said.

However, Mr De Lange scoffed at the hypothetical example of a drugs dealer claiming his Ferrari against the proceeds of his crimes.

"No, he would have to prove that he needed the car to transport the drugs and I hardly think he would transport them in a Ferrari."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...26.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/01/26/ixnewstop.html

maximus otter
 
I just posted the story on another forum. Amazing. The Dutch have just legitimized, if not legalized, CRIME! If the gun is a legitimate business expense, then the crime must have been a legitimate business. :(

Is law no more than word games? Does logic stand on any premise offered or no premise at all? Absurd.

Why bother with law at all if it offers the citizenry no more protection than that?

When crime becomes just another choice of lifestyle, then so does vigilantism.
 
Over here I do not think they allow that deduction. :D

That must be why some bozo tried to rob a bank in Bastidville with an "open carry" beer bottle yesterday.
 
I wonder if the gun would still look like a tax deduction to that judge, if he was staring down it's barrel as he was being robbed.
 
Wow, legal logic run amok. Proof that you can reason yourself into oblivion.
Maybe using that logic you can prove that someone should never had been
born and it was alright to correct the mistake.
 
TorzJohnson said:
I wonder if the gun would still look like a tax deduction to that judge, if he was staring down it's barrel as he was being robbed.
Click to expand...
There was a judge in NYC known as "Turn'em Loose" Bruce -- I can't remember his last name. The poor, downtrodden criminal always got a sympathetic ear in his court. He finally went so far as to vouch for one young transgressor by taking him into his own household. Then the news came out that the young man had split one day and took the judge's stereo with him. :D :p
 
EDIT- whoops, forgot which forum I was in.

This is truly ridiculous.

Jeremy
 
Found this on him, too :)

Back in the late 1980s, there was a judge in New York City named Bruce Wright, known to all as "Turn 'Em Loose Bruce" for his lenience towards the criminals who came up before him. This was one of those liberal judges who had an excuse for every felon, even for those too stupid or obstreperous to have prepared an excuse for themselves. Well, one day Judge Wright got mugged in the street near his home. He was off work for a few days. It was a big story in the tabloid newspapers, and a lot of people were making jokes about it. When Judge Wright returned to the bench, he made a point of starting off that day's session with an announcement: "As I'm sure you all know, I was the victim of a criminal assault the other day. I want to make it clear that this experience will in no way change my sentencing policies on this bench!" As he paused to let this sink in, someone called out from the back of the courtroom: "Mug him again!"
Click to expand...
 
This really isn't a surprise.
Way back near the beginning of time, when i was in law school [ we had to stop class when the Tyrannosaurs were out], it was accepted taxation law that prostitutes and other criminals had to report their income and pay taxes, but they could calculate their income and tax thereon using GAAP [generally accepted accounting principles] like everyone else, which means they could deduct expenses.
A gun obviously is an expenditure made to generate income for the robber and therefore should be matched against and deducted from the income thereby derived.
Law and ethics are important. But taxes and accounting principles are a fundamental force of nature, I guess.
 
Well then it would follow that if I robbed someone to pay off my house
then the taxi ride to rob them would be legit expense.
 
Wait! Maybe the judge is trying to get other criminals to claim their expenses so the police can catch them! :D

Dumb criminals!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top