|
|
| Author |
Message |
Vekril
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 15 Oct 2002
Posts: 2525
Location: Jersey
|
 Posted: 01/27/05 - 14:14 Post subject: Dutch criminals can deduct their cost of business (guns)
|
|
|
| Quote: | Bank Robber Itemizes Cost of Gun
Thursday, January 27, 2005
Crime may not pay in the Netherlands, but it is deductible.
A bank robber in the southern Dutch town of Chaam (search) was able to subtract the cost of his gun from his fine, the Daily Telegraph of London reported.
The unnamed stickup man, 46, managed to convince a criminal court in Breda, near the Belgian border, that the $2,600 he spent on his pistol was a legitimate business expense.
The judge accordingly reduced the amount of restitution from $8,750, the amount stolen from the bank, to $6,150, before sentencing the robber to four years in prison earlier this week.
"You can compare criminal acts to normal business activities, where you must invest to make profits, and thus you have costs," explained Leendert de Lange, a spokesman for the national prosecutor's office.
De Lange went further to state that drug dealers could also deduct the cost of vehicles used to make deliveries of illicit substances — within reason.
Asked whether a very successful drug kingpin could cite the cost of a Ferrari (search), de Lange replied: "No, he would have to prove that he needed the car to transport the drugs around, and I hardly think he would transport them in a Ferrari."
Furthermore, Dutch criminals had better be prepared to present receipts.
"You can't just tell the judge you spent 10,000 euro without any proof," de Lange said.
Day-to-day expenses don't count either, only costs directly related to the crime, said Gerard Sta, director of the Office of Criminal Assets, told De Standaard newspaper of Amsterdam.
"A second condition is that the criminal offense must be carried out," Sta added.
"The idea is that crime does not pay," summed up de Lange, "but you are allowed to claim your expenses."
|
This is worse than anything coming out of the 9th Circuit out on the West Coast. Pathetic example of European liberalism...
oh and btw, $2600 for a gun? was it gold plated?
Last edited by Vekril on 01/27/05 - 15:03; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
 |
themy
Sir Postalot
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 1153
|
|
Posted: 01/27/05 - 15:01 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
haha
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Celestra
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 6929
|
|
Posted: 01/27/05 - 16:03 Post subject:
|
|
|
Idiots are everywhere 
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Nuldaan
Sir Postalot
Joined: 07 Nov 2002
Posts: 1179
|
|
Posted: 01/27/05 - 18:44 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Celestra wrote: | | Idiots are everywhere |
It is scary that some of them are judges...although stupid rulings are hardly confined to Europe.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Vekril
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 15 Oct 2002
Posts: 2525
Location: Jersey
|
|
Posted: 01/27/05 - 19:03 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
it was not just the judge, the prosecutor was in favor of this policy as well, he even elaborated on it...
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Mugaaz
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 3576
|
|
Posted: 01/27/05 - 19:18 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
I agree that it is a valid business expense. But the activity is anti-social and has no right to recieve a taxbreak. It is not beneficiial to society in anyway - Even if he legally bought the gun from an authorized dealer.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Aviger
RealPoor Sensei
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 1509
|
|
Posted: 01/27/05 - 19:50 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Mugaaz wrote: | | I agree that it is a valid business expense. But the activity is anti-social and has no right to recieve a taxbreak. It is not beneficiial to society in anyway - Even if he legally bought the gun from an authorized dealer. |
See that's where i don't get this story and it starts sounding fishy.
For one guns in Holland are illegal, PERIOD.
You cannot own a gun in your house unless you are police/militairy and if you want one as a civilian it's at LEAST a 2 year period before you can have one in your house and i doubt a criminal would wait 2 years 
So if he got it ILLEGALLY how can he get his money back?
The fact is was 2600$ means it was illegal because legal guns are same price as here in the US (trust me , i checked )
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Clevinger
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 3765
Location: Austin
|
|
Posted: 01/27/05 - 21:20 Post subject:
|
|
|
you can do that in the US as well.
drug dealers can deduct their inventory, etc.
and I'm 100% serious
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Baha
Sir Postalot
Joined: 12 Oct 2002
Posts: 1214
|
|
Posted: 01/27/05 - 21:34 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
dealers can not deduct their inventory in the us, lol. would be nice.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
kbarr
RealPoor Jedi
Joined: 05 Oct 2004
Posts: 11239
Location: New York, now go fuck off...
|
|
Posted: 01/28/05 - 02:37 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Mugaaz wrote: | | I agree that it is a valid business expense. But the activity is anti-social and has no right to recieve a taxbreak. It is not beneficiial to society in anyway - Even if he legally bought the gun from an authorized dealer. |
This is where my genius is needed. To clear the air and point out the real problem.
Ok people, sit tight I'm about to beat you to death with logic.
Robbing a bank is NOT doing "business", it is called committing a "crime"
Still don't understand? Then you are hopelessly clueless, should be neutered and shunned forever.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Celestra
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 6929
|
|
Posted: 01/28/05 - 04:48 Post subject:
|
|
|
I dunno if the story is true, but regardless the reasoning is flawed.
The flaw is in the word 'business', just like Kbarr said.
If is not work, but a crime, then expenses made for it are not work expenses.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Nuldaan
Sir Postalot
Joined: 07 Nov 2002
Posts: 1179
|
|
Posted: 01/28/05 - 07:27 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Celestra wrote: | I dunno if the story is true, but regardless the reasoning is flawed.
The flaw is in the word 'business', just like Kbarr said.
If is not work, but a crime, then expenses made for it are not work expenses. |
How can you discriminate against criminals like that?!?! They would obviously work if they could only get a job. 
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Nuldaan
Sir Postalot
Joined: 07 Nov 2002
Posts: 1179
|
|
Posted: 01/28/05 - 07:29 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Vekril wrote: | | it was not just the judge, the prosecutor was in favor of this policy as well, he even elaborated on it... |
True...but ultimately, it is the judge that gave this the okay, assuming the story is true.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
