Reference:


Well if you display affluence without commensurate legit income you must be a criminal. I think all societies accept that. The infamous Al-Capone was finally nailed for tax fraud when they couldn't make other charges stick. As they say in the FBI, 'follow the money'. It will lead to all sorts of interesting places and perhaps solve a lot of knotty crimes.

You contradicted your own assumption and logic.

Key word is legit income. This means that displaying affluence "without an identifiable means of income" (key word identifiable) is not a crime in itself, because unidentifiable is not tantamount to illegit, just as 'identifiable' does not necessarily mean legit. What would be a crime, hypothetically, is if the wealth you're displaying is from an illegit source.

And even if the entire world suspects that your wealth is illegit, it's not enough to arrive at the kind of conclusion you suggested - i.e. "if you display affluence without commensurate legit income you must be a criminal". That's an unfortunate and hasty assumption. Law enforcement must always take the pains and invest the time and resources to Investigate and establish that your money is illegit, before moving in on you. That's the hallmark of a society based on Rule of Law.

I like the example you gave, about Al Capone, which negates your earlier faulty assumption. Al Capone committed tons of crimes, including murder and money laundering. But in the end, the Feds could only go against him on charges of tax evasion. Why? Was it that they didn't assume (read: know) that he committed those other more heinous crimes? No. It's because they simply couldn't muster enough evidence against him. That's exactly my point.

muller101:
young man I am not a BIGOT like the rest of u disgracing yourselves here. U think nigeria or nairaland is all about igbos and Yorubas. .

you are a bigot

Why are they hiding the identity of the suspects.something doesn't smell right here.9ja things.I pray to live this country soon