RE: More of my family's repugnant display of faith
October 24, 2011 at 7:51 pm
(This post was last modified: October 24, 2011 at 7:54 pm by Autumnlicious.)
Oh for fucks sake...
To put it in purple crayon, a fucking Judge will look at what a person employed by a charity does (they earn money after it has been accounted for in the organization), what someone whom donates to a charity expects and then compares it what Allie's fortunate relatives have done.
In this case, the judge will see that this person is claiming to represent a charity. However, instead of passing the donations onto said charity where said donations can be logged for tax purposes, he has taken an amount. So we have a case of fraud when it comes to tax accounting.
Now, if the organization did not explicitly put that action in writing, then this man has committed theft. If the organization did place that in writing, then the charity itself is now in trouble for potential laundering charges (along with fraud).
Finally, the judge will look at what someone who donates to said charity would expect. To do this, the attorneys present and argue their case while the judge examines the evidence and constructs a rhetorical story to fit the facts based on what both attorneys are presenting. So for someone donating, the judge no doubt will look at how the defendant presented himself, how he asked for things, what his documentation/materials were presented as and the consider that while asking "What would a member of the public, given the defendant's story, expect?"
Charities do have to submit documentation detailing their income so as to not run afoul of money laundering or fraud.
Did you seriously fucking try to use Robin Hood as an argument?
To put it in purple crayon, a fucking Judge will look at what a person employed by a charity does (they earn money after it has been accounted for in the organization), what someone whom donates to a charity expects and then compares it what Allie's fortunate relatives have done.
In this case, the judge will see that this person is claiming to represent a charity. However, instead of passing the donations onto said charity where said donations can be logged for tax purposes, he has taken an amount. So we have a case of fraud when it comes to tax accounting.
Now, if the organization did not explicitly put that action in writing, then this man has committed theft. If the organization did place that in writing, then the charity itself is now in trouble for potential laundering charges (along with fraud).
Finally, the judge will look at what someone who donates to said charity would expect. To do this, the attorneys present and argue their case while the judge examines the evidence and constructs a rhetorical story to fit the facts based on what both attorneys are presenting. So for someone donating, the judge no doubt will look at how the defendant presented himself, how he asked for things, what his documentation/materials were presented as and the consider that while asking "What would a member of the public, given the defendant's story, expect?"
(October 24, 2011 at 7:31 pm)SophiaGrace Wrote: Charities have to pay taxes?
yes the money might make less people eat dirt cookies.
Okay lets suppose he was in it just for the profit. Even that, even with that motive 75% of what he collected (earned) went to Haiti so less people have to eat dirt cookies.
Charities do have to submit documentation detailing their income so as to not run afoul of money laundering or fraud.
(October 24, 2011 at 7:31 pm)SophiaGrace Wrote: This reminds me of Robin Hood for some reason...
Did you seriously fucking try to use Robin Hood as an argument?
Slave to the Patriarchy no more
