Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (6856)	12/8/2004 11:36:21 AM
From: rrufff	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

I don't disagree with your post in general but I believe you are confusing 2 concepts. Obviously if the law requires you to keep records and you do not, you already have broken the law. Your statement is correct but that is not what is at issue here. Here we are talking about alleged obstruction of justice. The important issue is not whether or not the law requires someone to keep records. If the law did require it, then it is easier to prove obstruction. It's a matter of fact and evidence. If there is no law that requires keeping records, and I doubt there is a law that says "thou shalt keep weblogs," and someone destroyed them in the normal course, that would be an evidentiary plus. However, if the destroyer had reason to know that the destruction was to hide illegal activity, then a case could be made for obstruction of justice, even if he normally destroyed records every few months or days, etc. Intent here is key, keeping in mind that we are talking criminal activity and the government must prove the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.