Lawsuit: Dismissed The Commonwealth of Redmont v LavenderxBlaxii [2023] FCR 32

[Bibsfi4a]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION


The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

LavenderxBlaxii
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Prosecution alleges criminal actions committed by the Defendant as follows:

“Any means by which an individual or company manages monetary assets with the intent to avoid taxation is known as tax evasion "

The prosecution has found proof against LavenderxBlaxii of massive tax evasion of around 200,000$.
Lavender (lavenderxblaxii will be referred to as Lavender by The State) has committed tax evasion by depositing a total of $158,000 into KentHardware and without any chest shops and very few sales logged into CPI. But suddenly a total of $158,000 was deposited, making the prosecution believe that “tax evasion” is happening.
I. PARTIES
1. The Commonwealth
2. LavenderxBlaxii

II. FACTS
1. Meager sales logged for KentHardware in the past year.
2. According to the CPI no significant profit could have been made by CPI
3. When checking the locations of KentHardware very few chest shops were found.
4. Due to the low profits $158,000 was deposited.

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. LavenderxBlaxii charged with 1 count of Tax evasion.

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. $10,000 in fines for LavenderxBlaxii.
2. KentHardware be disbanded.

V. EVIDENCE

a) CPI logged in for KentHardware

b) $158,000 in KentHardware

c) Locations for KentHardware

(None of these are owned by LavenderxBlaxii anymore)

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

 

[Bibsfi4a]

EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

The Commonwealth would like to request the court to freeze the company's assets

 

[Trentrick_Lamar]

Your honor, I would like to file an amicus brief on this case as a member of the Compliance Enforcement Section.

 

[PiOs67]

Your Honor,

With the due respect, I would like to reming kindly to the court the constitutional article §32 IX:

Any citizen, has the right to an attorney for a speed and fair trial. Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and fair trial presided over by an impartial Judge.

I note that this case, although the subject of a request for urgent action, has not been answered since Sunday.

Sincerely,

 

[Nacho]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of The Commonwealth of Redmont v LavenderxBlaxii [2023] FCR 32. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​

 

[Nacho]

EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

The Commonwealth would like to request the court to freeze the company's assets

The injunction has been granted. The court hereby orders the DOJ to seize an amount totaling 158,000 from the company balance to hold for the duration of the court case. Should the DOJ be unable to fine the company itself the defendant is also ordered to facilitate this transfer of funds to the government. These funds shall be held in escrow untaxed for the duration of the case. Should the defendant be found guilty the funds will not be returned however, should the defendant be found innocent the funds will be returned.

 

[Nacho]

Your honor, I would like to file an amicus brief on this case as a member of the Compliance Enforcement Section.

What is the subject of the amicus brief? What is the purpose of the amicus brief?

 

[Nacho]

Your Honor,

With the due respect, I would like to reming kindly to the court the constitutional article §32 IX:

I note that this case, although the subject of a request for urgent action, has not been answered since Sunday.

Sincerely,

Noted

 

[Trentrick_Lamar]

What is the subject of the amicus brief? What is the purpose of the amicus brief?

The purpose and subject of my amicus brief are simultaneously to provide background into the nature of what spurred this investigation, as a member of the DoC within the compliance enforcement section, and the questions raised by the information obtained by the DoC in conducting everyday activities.

 

[LilDigiVert]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

LavenderxBlaxii (LilDigiVert Representing)
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT & DEFENSES

The Prosecution alleges criminal actions committed by the Defendant as follows:
“Any means by which an individual or company manages monetary assets with the intent to avoid taxation is known as tax evasion "

The Defense strongly denies that this is the definition of tax evasion. While one would expect the Prosecution and government to have the capability to find the appropriate law, which in this case is the White Collar Crackdown Act. The White Collar Crackdown Act defines balance tax evasion as: “The act of intentionally or recklessly transferring, funds to one or more personal balances or company bank accounts with no legitimate purpose, with the result that less tax is paid.”

Under the Prosecution’s own definition, it fails to prove the intent to avoid taxation in any of the evidence provided. This is an independent reason to dismiss the case on face.

Even under the actual definition of tax evasion in the White Collar Crackdown Act, which the government is alarmingly not using, the Prosecution fails to meet its burden of proof of evidence on multiple fronts:

1. There was the intention to move money in the KentHardware balance to avoid taxes. If the Prosecution tries to save face for posting an embarrassingly unsubstantiated claim and make this argument in an opening statement, it would likely also do so with no evidence, because KentHardware is a legitimate, respected business that has been in operation for a year. The profit was made well before the window of evidence in the Prosecution’s exhibit A. Much of the company’s balance came before the Reveille transition in 2021 as well.
2. There was no legitimate purpose to move money to the KentHardware balance. Like many businesses in Redmont, KentHardware has made and continues to make money through other means such as online delivery sales, plot rentals, and P2P sales. Additionally, when KentHardware and Tipton split, additional money was deposited into the company balance. Finally, KentHardware owns sell chests, keeping a healthy company balance is necessary to ensure that customers and employees alike are able to access the company’s various sell shops. See Exhibits A & B below for proof of rentals and sell shops
3. Even if the above two are somehow true in some capacity, the Defendant has paid less taxes as a result of this. Given that in October 2022 the corporate and personal balance taxes became identical with the Financial Services Act, and we are now in March 2023, the Defendant has not paid any less in taxes. The tax bracket changed nearly six months ago, and the statute of limitations is two months. Unfortunately for the Prosecution, the last time this could have even been considered tax evasion (which the Defendant staunchly still maintains it is not) was way beyond the statute of limitations.

The prosecution has found proof against LavenderxBlaxii of massive tax evasion of around 200,000$.

The Defense entirely denies this claim. There is no evidence of “around $200,000” being evaded. The amount in the Prosecution’s own evidence is over $40,000 less, and it does not account for money made through other means, such as plot rentals and non-CPI registered sales. See Exhibit A below for proof of existing plot rentals.

Lavender (lavenderxblaxii will be referred to as Lavender by The State) has committed tax evasion by depositing a total of $158,000 into KentHardware and without any chest shops and very few sales logged into CPI. But suddenly a total of $158,000 was deposited, making the prosecution believe that “tax evasion” is happening.

The Defense determinedly denies this claim. There is no evidence to support a “sudden” $158,000 claim. Rather, KentHardware has worked for this money since being founded in 2021. Furthermore, and as mentioned above, the State for some reason believes that the CPI is a catch-all for how businesses make money. This antiquated logic does not account for the various other services offered in Redmont outside of chestshops that are logged by the CPI. Furthermore, the Prosecution’s own Exhibit C shows the amount of plots owned by KentHardware in Hamilton (as indicated by the “c-” prefix) - many of which were cashed out and/or sold for profit that was put into the company balance. The Prosecution gives literally 0 evidence to prove the source of the money, and its narrative should not be taken at face value.

The Prosecution also claims that KentHardware is making money “without any chest shops” but simultaneously claims that very few sales are logged on the chestshop. This probably warrants perjury as the Prosecution is using the phrase “without any chestshops” to paint a narrative that KentHardware is fully defunct despite ITS OWN EVIDENCE proving otherwise. Having chestshops vs not having chestshops is monumental in a tax evasion case, and this well crosses the line from hyperbole to flat-out deception.

Furthermore, the evidence the Prosecution uses is from January. Evidence post below include screenshots of more recent chestshop sales and screenshots of existing buy and sell shops.

II. FACTS
1. Meager sales logged for KentHardware in the past year.
2. According to the CPI no significant profit could have been made by CPI

The defense unmistakably denies this claim. This is circular logic and does not account for other types of revenue, as mentioned before. Businesses make money beyond the CPI. There is no reason to bubba punish businesses for offering services and making money outside of chestshops as it is not a law. KentHardware is also still actively selling products, as seen in Exhibit D below.

3. When checking the locations of KentHardware very few chest shops were found.

The emphatically defense denies this claim. The KentHardware brand has admittedly shrunk since the Reveille transfer, but still operates two fully functioning locations at cbd047 & c291. While the business portal has not been updated to reflect the company’s locations in the new city like many other businesses (which is also not against the law), it is still fully operational, offering high quality materials at accessible prices to everyday citizens of Redmont. See exhibits B & C below for proof of an existing set of chest shops.

4. Due to the low profits $158,000 was deposited.

The defense unequivocally denies this claim. Not only is this unsubstantiated like many of the other arguments brought forward by the State today, but it is also incorrect. KentHardware has made it’s money through legitimate means through its longtime existence as a premier business in the Redmont community.

II. MOTIONS TO DISMISS

This case should be dismissed for reasons beyond its unsubstantiated and false claims. The Prosecution’s case should not even be heard because of:

1. Statute of Limitations. As per the Standardized Criminal Code Act, “Prosecution for a criminal offense must be commenced within two months of the date of the alleged offense.” In the past two months, the tax rate has been the same for corporate and personal balance taxes, meaning that where money is stored cannot result in tax evasion. Tax evasion is literally impossible by the means the Prosecution argues.

2. Perjury. The Prosecution contradicts itself by arguing that KentHardware simultaneously has zero chestshops and very few chestshops. While this may seem like a miniscule difference, the Defense explains above why painting a narrative that KentHardware is operating with no sales is inherently harmful and misleading in a trial over tax evasion.

3. Outdated evidence. Not to be confused with lack of evidence, which this case is also suffering from severely, the Prosecution’s arguments are predicated on plots owned by KentHardware in Reveille (Prosecution’s Exhibit C), its profits from months ago (beyond the statute of limitations) (Prosecution’s Exhibit A), and an outdated definition of “tax evasion”.

III. EVIDENCE

Exhibit A: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/931953769267212369/1084504211099754526/image.png
Exhibit B: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/931953769267212369/1084505066351894638/image.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/931953769267212369/1084503471748829284/image.png
Exhibit C: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/931953769267212369/1084502008133861456/image.png
Exhibit D: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/931953769267212369/1084500878167375954/image.png

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 15th day of March 2023.

 

[LilDigiVert]

Oh, this too - sorry.

 

[Nacho]

The purpose and subject of my amicus brief are simultaneously to provide background into the nature of what spurred this investigation, as a member of the DoC within the compliance enforcement section, and the questions raised by the information obtained by the DoC in conducting everyday activities.

I am going to deny this request if the prosecution needs your testimony, they will call you as a witness.

 

[Nacho]

Does the prosecution have a response to these motions to dismiss? (Please have a response within 48hrs)

 

[Bibsfi4a]

Your honor I would like to request an extension of 24 hours to discuss with the Prosecution

 

[Nacho]

Your honor I would like to request an extension of 24 hours to discuss with the Prosecution

I will grant this extension. Please be prompt.

 

[Bibsfi4a]

Your honor, Sorry for the inconvenience but I would like to request another extension of 24 hours.
I was sick all day and had no time to get on my PC.
I need some more hours as I am just not in the best condition.
Hope you understand my situation
The court can expect a response by tomorrow early morning

 

[LilDigiVert]

Objection, your honor.

The Defendant currently has their entire company balance frozen by the government and needs to pay its employees. While the Defense wishes the Prosecutor a speedy recovery, there are surely others in the who can take the case on behalf of the State. It should not take 4 whole days to respond to a motion to dismiss - especially in a time sensitive case such as this one.

Furthermore, the Prosecutor DID indeed have enough time to log in both yesterday and today, and even engage in EULA fearmongering in global chat: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/796568254596120576/1086759755114090496/image.png

In order to make this process easier for all parties involved, we ask that either this extension be granted for only 12 additional hours, setting a firm deadline of 10:31am EST tomorrow, or (and this is preferable) unfreezing all but $10,000 of the Defendant's assets as that is the sentencing fine requested by the Prosecution.

 

[Nacho]

It is apparent that the prosecution has gone ahead and violated this court's time. It is the opinion of this court that the extension was provided as a courtesy to an unprepared prosecutor. I am rather appalled by this behavior. I provided the prosecution an additional 24 hours to discuss and form a response to the motions to dismiss. In the eyes of this court, the prosecution has failed to form a response other than requesting more time.

Based on the facts and the lack of response by the state in terms of contesting the Motions to Dismiss, I will be accepting the 3 motions filed within this court. Furthermore - the current injunction seizing the company assets and freezing them is hereby lifted.

I will be further recommending to the DLA to properly investigate the allegations of perjury before this court and be charging the state prosecutor with 1 count of contempt for failure to provide the court with a response.

This case is herby dismissed.