German Court Finds Defrauding Islamic State is a Crime

BERLIN (Reuters) - A German court has found a Syrian refugee guilty of attempting to defraud Islamic State, a court spokeswoman said on Monday, granting legal protection to a group viewed as terrorists by the European Union.

A judge in the district court in the southwestern city of Saarbruecken sentenced the 39-year old hairdresser from Damascus to two years in prison for trying to get Islamic State operatives to transfer him up to 180,000 euros ($212,400.00).

The judge ruled that the man used the false pretence that he would carry out attacks in Germany for Islamic State using explosives. The money was never transferred to the man.

The court rejected the prosecution’s argument that the man was guilty of the more serious crime of planning to carry out attacks on behalf of the militant organization.

Both parties have appealed the ruling to the Federal Supreme Court, the court spokeswoman said. The Syrian refugee was named only as Hasan A. due to German privacy laws.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-justice-islamicstate-idUSKCN1AU118

Click to expand...

Let that be a lesson to anyone else. Germany will not tolerate it if you renege on your agreement to kill it's citizens.

Is the concept of rule of law new to you?

What a BS thread (by the conclusion the OP offers up) and with how much more BS threads from same source will the Europe forum have to put up with?

The court sentenced the perp. for fraud, and none of that has anything to do with him reneging on his promises to IS (nor, as Reuters idiotically claims, with granting IS legal protection).

If he had indeed planned a terrorist attack, he'd have been whacked far more heavily, but the court established that any keeping of such promise was never intended.

The principle of financial assets of any entity being an "economic asset" that may not be stolen goes back as far as 1911 in Germany, when a Berlin imperial court declared that there is no property not protected by law, even if that property was actually acquired thru illegal means. Basing that ruling on its assessment that property need be seen as separated from its owner and as such also separated from the means by which it was acquired (something for a completely different lawsuit). IOW stealing from a thief makes the theft no less criminal, be the entity that is stolen from IS, the mafia or just you and me.

I presume that, next thing, we'll get some more idiotic claims on here along the lines of had the money actually been paid, the court would now turn it over to IS.

There incidentally exist in German law other assessments of "assets", one of them being "legal assets". It'll be interesting to see which one the Federal court will home in on.

Carjosse said:

Is the concept of rule of law new to you?

Click to expand...

If the desire to post tripe takes precedence with anyone over intelligently providing information, rule of law is no concern.

We need not speculate over the motivational drive for spreading such tripe, it has been well documented for Lord knows how long.

Truth having nothing to do with it whatsoever.

truthatallcost said:

Let that be a lesson to anyone else. Germany will not tolerate it if you renege on your agreement to kill it's citizens.

Click to expand...

Are you saying it shouldn't be illegal to try to make a financial deal with ISIS to kill people? Super strange that you're on the side of the terrorist seeking funding, but also not surprising.

truthatallcost said:

Let that be a lesson to anyone else. Germany will not tolerate it if you renege on your agreement to kill it's citizens.

Click to expand...

There was not enough evidence that he actually wanted to commit terrorist attacks in Germany so it was either convicting him of this and then allowing his refugee status to be revoked and being kicked out of the country or acquit him of the plans for terror attacks and nothing could be done against the guy.

Bad situation for the court, but solved in a way that would prevent him being allowed to remain in Germany.

Carjosse said:

Is the concept of rule of law new to you?

Click to expand...

No, no, it's been around since... well... the beginning, right?



However, if a thought (verdict, opinion) springs from a false premise - regardless of its consequences - is it not false as well?

Carjosse said:

Is the concept of rule of law new to you?

Click to expand...

Experience tells me that there are many obsessed idiots that are prepared to throw carefully drafted legal processes under the bus as long as they get their political rocks off on it.

Chagos said:

If the desire to post tripe takes precedence with anyone over intelligently providing information, rule of law is no concern.

We need not speculate over the motivational drive for spreading such tripe, it has been well documented for Lord knows how long.

Truth having nothing to do with it whatsoever.

Click to expand...

Considering your post is about the same as any other post concerning this subject leads me to believe there is too much truth in those posts. It is obvious.

coldjoint said:

Considering your post is about the same as any other post concerning this subject leads me to believe there is too much truth in those posts. It is obvious.

Click to expand...

Considering that you do not appear to have understood the first thing about this issue here, your belief is just as irrelevant as what you've had to say on the whole matter.

Most obvious are thus both your ignorance and your incomprehension on the subject matter..

Chagos said:

Considering that you do not appear to have understood the first thing about this issue here, your belief is just as irrelevant as what you've had to say on the whole matter.

Most obvious are thus both your ignorance and your incomprehension on the subject matter..

Click to expand...

Again, a stock answer that says nothing, and the usual insult.

coldjoint said:

Again, a stock answer that says nothing, and the usual insult.

Click to expand...

Your contribution here merits the answer that is applicable most everywhere else as well. The fact that you clearly have nothing to say on German law in this case also confirms that you don't understand the issue here at all and thus spout forth in ignorance.

You wanna feel insulted over that being pointed out, knock yerself out by all means.

coldjoint said:

Again, a stock answer that says nothing, and the usual insult.

Click to expand...

Ah well, all of it quite immaterial now, ain't it?:lol: