Your honor,
No extension is necessary.
CLOSING STATEMENT
Your honor,
Let's reflect of the facts of this case, that have been affirmed by both parties. On December 25th, the defendant un-fined themselves $5,000,000 from a government account, to which, the defendants own counsel has affirmed in their answer to the complaint that the defendant had no right to do so.
What the defense argues is whether the money was stolen illegally. This is a cut and dry case your honor, the defense can't in their right mind argue that someone can take money from an account that does not belong to them, an account that they have affirmed that the defendant did not have permission to take from and it be legal.
The prosecution has recommended the following action be taken.
1- The defendant pay back the entire $5,000,000 that was stolen from the government. The evidence that we have provided, shows that only $4,456,743.11 has been returned to the government. The defense has been unable to provide any counter to this argument, and has been able to provide no EVIDENCE to prove otherwise. THis very court affirms this fact with their confirmation of it on Jan. 6th 2024, when it posted " Currently with all of the evidence provided within the Injunction
the amount sits at $4,456,743.11 this does not equal the $5 million at question." We hold firm our stance that the defendant shall be ordered to repay the remaining balance that was taken and not returned.
2- The defendant be convicted of corruption. Corruption is defined as "The act of using a government position to act to give some advantage inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others to unfairly benefit oneself, or someone else." We have already established through the testimony of a professional witness that the sudden act of acquiring $5,000,000 IS an advantage that is inconsistent with the official duty of any government position. I have already expressed by extreme disappointment in our staff team for disobeying the court and ignoring the legal summons to answer the question, but lets look at the facts. There is only 1 way to have access to a government bank account, and that is to hold a position within the government which the defendant has had many times. Whether the permissions should have been removed but weren't, or there was some "bug" as the defense claims is irrelevant. The ONLY way one can get access to government funds is to hold a government position. You yourself your honor, have even acknowledged that the defendant had a government position in an earlier post by yourself on Dec. 28th, 2023 where you wrote "The Prosecution does not need to rebuttal as I will be
rejecting the Motion to Dismiss
given the powers used to provide the 5 million dollars were still used by a Government position and are shown across multiple business ventures."
Furthermore, the Court made this statement on January 6th. "Point four,
whether working for the Government or not the money was still taken out by permissions provided by a position that only those who work for the Government would have. Yes, this could have been a glitch in which case it would be a staff matter primarily. Given that the Staff Team has been called as a Witness we will wait before assuming this.
Until then we will continue as such assuming there was no glitch and they had the appropriate permissions to do so. The Defense has also not proven that the Defendant was not working for the Government at the time."
Your honor, the staff team testified that the defendant should not have had the permissions, and that it was an administrative error, they did NOT state that it was a "bug/glitch" as the defense has suggested. The defendant clearly still had permissions consistent with that of a government position and abused them, which meets the letter of the law as laid out previously.
3- We also seek the embezzlement charges be applied to the fullest extent possible. Per the Commercial Standards Act Embezzlement is defined as "
The act of withholding assets for the purpose of conversion of such assets, by one or more persons to whom the assets were entrusted, for personal gain.” Again, the defense wants to argue that the defendant was not "entrusted" with the funds, but I ask, how else would the defendant get access to the bank account? I certainly don't have access to any government accounts. The answer is simple, the defendant WAS entrusted with the funds whenever he was given permissions to the account in question, and the fact that he was able to make the un-fine, shows that this trust was never revoked. Whether this was in error or not is irrelevant. I don't think that I need to prove that his actions were for personal gain, as the defendants actions made them have the largest balance of cash in the game. The defendant also met the requirements of withholding assets for the purpose of conversion, as they did convert the cash to several different banks and financial institutions.
4- The court has already affirmed that serial charges would be applicable in their response on Jan. 6th where it was stated "should the Court rule in favor of the Commonwealth and charge the Defense with 2 counts of Embezzlement then that would be the two counts required for the serial charge to be placed." We still seek that this be the case and serial charges be applied to both embezzlement and money laundering.
5- Money Laundering charges. Your honor, despite the defenses best attempts, it is clear and obvious that the defendant sough to distribute the funds as much as possible in order to "muddy the waters" as to where the funds went. Money Laundering is defined as "Any act to conceal funds illegally obtained, through commercial transactions, business deals, or any means otherwise." We have established that the funds were illegally obtained, and that the defendant distributed the funds through transactions and business deals. The defense argues that the government is able to track transactions and therefore the defendant did not try to "conceal" them. Your honor, keep in mind that this is a GAME. Of course transactions are logged, its a game. People are convicted of money laundering IRL all the time for putting illegally acquired money into bank accounts and company accounts where it does not belong, and that is exactly what has taken place here.
Your honor, as you can see all of these charges have merit, and are applicable to the case at hand. The defendant has stolen from the government, performed a corrupt act, embezzled and attempted to launder the money. The state has provided evidence coming from the defense and court itself that is irrefutable. We ask that you uphold the maximum sentence applicable to send a message to the citizens that and other governmental employees that these actions are NOT condoned by the Judiciary, and show that the iron fist of the law will come down on those that break it. There have already been "copycat" crimes committed and a strong showing and punishment from this court would go a long way towards deterring any future actions from taking place.
Thank you for your time and consideration.