SD v Seoulpig 2021 Crim 1

SD v Seoulpig 2021 Crim 1

Date of judgment	4th January 2021
Judge	Chief Justice SeaOtter
Charges	1 charge of Conspiracy to Commit Blackmail (Article 16 inchoate to Article 25 of the Criminal Code)
Verdict	Guilty of 1 charge of Conspiracy to Commit Blackmail
Sentence	6 month ban
Applicable persuasive precedent	Screenshots may be used to facilitate witness testimony, as long as it is not used to prove matters of fact, 8 The defendant may fire absentia lawyers at will, but the new lawyer may not redo parts of the trial, 11 Admittance of guilt may be used as evidence as long as it is supplemented by proof, 19 Partially overturns SD v Dickhead68 2020 Crim 15

JUDGMENT by Chief Justice SeaOtter

Introduction

[1]. The defendant has been charged with Conspiracy to Blackmail for their role in allegedly leading a group known as “Pirates Cove” (aka SimPiracy in some usages).

Summary of Arguments

[2]. The prosecution presented evidence from the SDBI investigation into the group, most of which utilized an agent within the group. The agent alleged that the defendant created the group to steal citizen’s information and sell it for Tau. Following that, the prosecution presented evidence of the defendant stating the goal of the group, which was to “hijack servers ... as well as steal confidential information and ransom it back.”

[3]. The defendant also described the organizational structure of the group, which was backed up by a copy of the group’s charter. The defendant then invited the agent to the Pirate’s Cove Discord server. Within the server, the defendant suggests infiltrating a political party in SimDemocracy. This is continued in further messages.

[4]. A member of the group suggests that the group bases its operations in a Sim called Adoria, inside which the defendant claims a “pirate republic” known to be Pirate’s Cove” to be his. In following articles, the prosecution demonstrated that the defendant was seeking members for a group known as “SimPiracy” since September. He also recruited using Reddit posts. Several more conversations are shown with other citizens in which the defendant recruits them to the same Discord called Pirate’s Cove.

[5]. Shortly after the messages described in 3, the defendant joins the CPSU, something which the prosecution noted as consistent with the plans made in the Pirate’s Cove Discord. The prosecution further explained that two members of the alleged conspiracy joined the same party at the same time after not having an inclination for CPSU policies, and discussing infiltrations plans in a separate Discord. This is backed up by another citizen remaking in #general in SimDemocracy that the defendant asked him to look for “dirt” on the CPSU.

[6]. In the questioning of witnesses, the defense makes several arguments. The first of which is that SimPiracy is separate from Pirate’s Cove. The witness BelugaWhaleMan9 testified to the fact that “all we did was count.” They also testified to the fact that they did not witness illegal activity. However, it should be noted that the witness may not have had access to all channels in the SimDemocracy Discord server.

[7]. On cross examination, the witness agreed that they may not have seen all messages. In addition, they noted that Seoul had wanted the subreddit SimPiracy, which may have explained the mentions within the Pirate’s Cove Discord.

Procedural Matters

[8]. A few procedural matters were brought to the attention of the court, and shall be addressed. First of all, there is the matter of demonstratives. In the questioning of witness BelugaWhaleMan9, the prosecution utilized a screenshot to aid the witness in their testimony. Said screenshot was not previously entered as evidence. The court finds this acceptable. As long as such evidence 1\) does not go towards the truth of the matter in the case, 2\) helps the witness jog their memory, and 3\) is accompanied by relevant witness testimony, it shall be allowed.

[9]. At the close of the trial, the witness brought up the fact that the defendant had contacted them and asked to appoint them as counsel towards the end of the trial. The witness claimed that the defendant had also not been informed of the legal actions against them. The witness, acting as the new defense counsel, motioned for a mistrial.

[9.1]. The witness alleged that the defense counsel (appointed through the Trial in Absentia process, as mandated by the Courtroom Procedures Act), has not properly contacted the defendant. The court believed that this was irrelevant, as if the defendant does not properly take actions to ensure that justice is served and their rights observed, the State will do so for them. This is done through the TiA process.

[9.2]. Following the rejection of the motion, the decision was appealed to the Supreme Court, who ruled that “The Court rejects the motion for a mistrial 2-0 but has decided that the attorney appointed by the accused should be given the opportunity to make their own arguments, including the opportunity to enter new evidence and cross examine evidence entered earlier, as well as make the closing statement.” The new defense counsel did not avail themselves of this opportunity, and so the former public defender took over for closing statements.

[10]. In the future, it is the courts recommendation that all defense attorneys contact the defendant to ensure proper representation. This was not done in this case.

[11]. The court also believes that the defendant may dismiss and appoint new representation at any time, but that representation will not be permitted to go to previous stages in the trial and re-do certain actions, such as the calling of witnesses and examination of evidence if the court has passed that stage.

Conspiring

[12]. Unlike with Treason (Article 55), conspiring is not contained within the blackmail charge itself. Therefore, the Article 16 definition of Conspiracy should be used.

[13]. Conspiracy is defined as “when the defendant orders or requests, or otherwise directs a person to commit a criminal offense; or to assist or offer material assistance in committing a crime.”

[14]. As exhibited by the prosecution in [3] and [5], the defendant directed two members of the group to “infiltrate a party” [1] and “steal confidential information and ransom it back” [2] This is further confirmed by statements from the member of Pirate’s Cove [3]. The defendant then clearly directed members towards the CPSU [4] and joined the party, along with another member of Pirate’s Cove.

[15]. This very clearly falls into the definition of the defendant “directing a person to commit a crime.” The question now is if the actions constituted the crime charged, which is blackmail. Blackmail

[16]. Blackmail is defined as “an act of coercion, using the threat of revealing or publicizing true or false information; which may be humiliating, upsetting or otherwise unwanted by the victim; in order to enforce certain demands.”

[17]. In the evidence presented by the prosecution, the defendant states the goal of “stealing confidential information and ransom it back.” This most definitely falls under the blackmail definition as 1) the defendant conspiring to steal information, then threatening to release it, and 2) planning to demand payment in exchange for not releasing the information.

[17.1]. In terms of parties, any sort of classified information contained in party chats could be unwanted by the victim (the party), and therefore falls under the definition as well.

Admissions of Guilt

[18]. While a message admitting to a crime is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecution supplemented those messages with actual plans being put into place, and therefore this guideline is fulfilled.

Verdict

[19]. The court finds the defendant guilty of Conspiracy to commit Blackmail. It is abundantly clear that the defendant directed members of the Pirate’s Cove to steal information from the CPSU and plan to demand Tau for not releasing it. That clearly falls under the definition, and is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

[20]. However, the court believes that this crime is much less serious than similar crimes that have real life consequences, such as extorting someone’s personal information. Therefore, the court sentences the defendant to a 6 month ban from r/SimDemocracy and its territories.

[21]. Due to the defense counsel not properly contacting the defendant, their payment for their work will be cut by 80%. The defendant shall receive 200 tau for their work.