By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Player2 said:
Barozi said:

There are several flaws in that logic though.
You assume that people who commit financial crimes to be wealthy. So what's with a poor guy who is in serious debt and yet keeps buying TVs, mobile phones etc. with money he doesn't have? Do you think he cares that he gets a financial punishment? You can't stop his future actions that way.

So the alternative would be community work. And how exactly would you enforce that? A fine wouldn't help at all as stated above so the only chance would be to threaten him with a prison sentence.

You don't even go to jail for that, unless you haven't paid your taxes (that's tax evading) or neglect child support.

His actions will stop when no bank lends him money. And that happens fast. Then he'll be stripped off his posessions to pay his debts and find himself living under a bridge. Sounds like a good enough deterrent to me.

There's no bank involved in my example. He doesn't need money as that guy can just order his stuff and "pay later" (which he of course doesn't). He gets the goods, sells them to someone else, uses the money to buy food, alcohol, cigarettes or anything else that can't be stripped off of him.

If you do that on purpose, meaning you knew in advance that your debt is so big that you couldn't ever pay the money when you accepted the contract then you can face prison as this is a case of fraud.

Also he can't be living under a bridge when he lives in a country with a working social security system.