506
submitted 5 months ago by girlfreddy@lemmy.ca to c/news@lemmy.world

A juror was dismissed Monday after reporting that a woman dropped a bag of $120,000 in cash at her home and offered her more money if she would vote to acquit seven people charged with stealing more than $40 million from a program meant to feed children during the pandemic.

“This is completely beyond the pale,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph Thompson said in court on Monday. “This is outrageous behavior. This is stuff that happens in mob movies.”

These seven are the first of 70 defendants expected to go to trial in a conspiracy that cost taxpayers $250 million. Eighteen others have pleaded guilty, and authorities said they recovered about $50 million in one of the nation’s largest pandemic-related fraud cases. Prosecutors say just a fraction of the money went to feed low-income kids, while the rest was spent on luxury cars, jewelry, travel and property.

During the trial that began in April, defense attorneys questioned the quality of the FBI’s investigation and suggested that this might be more of a case of record-keeping problems than fraud as these defendants sought to keep up with rapidly changing rules for the food aid program.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] essell@lemmy.world 87 points 5 months ago

Plot twist... There was £250k in the bag when it was dropped off.

[-] dojan@lemmy.world 43 points 5 months ago

I don’t see why she couldn’t take the money and get off the jury. It’s not like the briber is entitled to illegal money. At that point she could just make sure the money ends up where it needs to go.

[-] Lmaydev@programming.dev 48 points 5 months ago

I guess the fear of people with those resources coming after you.

[-] HottieAutie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

How would she give it back tho?

[-] prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works 25 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

That’s the implication.

She was already paid by people with the resources to do the thing, they gave her the money (whether she agreed to it or not or had any knowledge).

She can’t give it back. How could she? Handing it to the authorities sends the message she didn’t keep the payment.

If someone gave you that much money and said do this thing (commit a crime to protect other criminals) it would probably be super intimidating generally. What do you do?

[-] HottieAutie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 5 months ago

I don't know. I saw similar situations recently in the Narcos series on Netflix. Innocent people were placed into situations in which they had to either (a) break the law for considerable compensation or (b) not break the law and suffer horrible consequences. I guess in that situation, the best you can do is to pack up as soon as possible and hide somewhere. There's really nothing else. If someone has the financial means and audacity to bribe a juror with $120k over a case with 70 defendants defrauding $250 million from the government, they likely have the means to order a hit on you and your family. It's a terrible situation to be in, and I would love to know how this has been handled in the past, how they are going to handle it now, and what the outcome will be.

[-] zabadoh@ani.social 3 points 5 months ago

There's no indication that this group attempting to bribe her are violent, and there was no explicit or implied violent "or else" threat, at least none mentioned in the AP and Star Tribune articles.

[-] HottieAutie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 5 months ago

that's true. I might be hyper- vigilant or reactive to those kinds of things.

[-] Lmaydev@programming.dev 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I think the act itself implies the threat. If they have those resources and are willing to brazenly break the law like that no actual threat is needed.

Even if they aren't violent and have no intention of being so the implication is there.

[-] FireTower@lemmy.world 20 points 5 months ago

Because that money belongs to someone, presumably the party that was defrauded.

[-] zabadoh@ani.social 5 points 5 months ago

Since she dropped the money off with the police, the person who owns the money can come and claim it.

If nobody claims it within a certain period of time, then the money is officially hers to keep.

If someone does come and claim it, then they will probably get in a lot of legal trouble.

i.e. The money's about as good as the former juror's. She just needs to wait.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 12 points 5 months ago

That's lost and found, this is criminal evidence. Police departments are very good at finding ways to keep money given to them. ;)

[-] zabadoh@ani.social 3 points 5 months ago
[-] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

She ain't getting that money back lol.

[-] capital@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago
[-] mercano@lemmy.world 12 points 5 months ago

It’s needed as evidence in the attempting to bribe a juror case.

[-] EleventhHour@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago

Because receiving a bribe is a crime, regardless of whether you do what you’re being bribed to do.

[-] capital@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

"I swear I only accepted it with every intention of giving it to kids who need food"

[-] tiefling 7 points 5 months ago

The cops put all $60k in the evidence vault

this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2024
506 points (100.0% liked)

News

23361 readers
2868 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS