Lawsuit: Dismissed The Commonwealth of Redmont v. ShinHeYing & Hong_Kong_101 [2021] FCR 72

[Canxx01]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION


Canxx01
Prosecution

v.

ShinHeYing
Defendant

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

PROSECUTING AUTHORITY REPORT

In pursuant to the R&L 10.0 C. § 10.2 T. E. which carries a sentence of 10,000 fines max, the Prosecution hereby sues ShinHeYing and Hong_Kong_101 for depositing funds in the amount of 80,000$ into Tang Corp and Clockwork Bank respectively, as a means to create a tax shelter, essentially evading their obligation to pay taxes.

I. PARTIES
1. Canxx01 - Prosecuting Authority
2. ShinHeYing - Defendant
3. Hong_Kong_101 - Defendant

II. FACTS
1. Evidence shows, given by a whistleblower, that ShinHeYing & HKE (Hong_Kong_101) were in a conversation regarding tax evasion.
2. In such conversation, Bee_101 (Nicknamed HKE, ingame server name Hong_Kong_101) has said "@Shinjyu Can we make a company at least together to hold the 160,000 away from taxes?"
3. ShinHeYing replied with "i just placed 80k in tang corp" and "since my company is registered"
4. Evidence gathered from a warrant shows that Hong_Kong_101 has deposited an amount of 80,000$ in Clockwork Bank, while ShinHeYing has deposited, consecutively (in a time frame of less than 5 seconds) 10,000$, depositing that amount of money 8 times as for it to add up to 80,000$ in total.
5. Thus, the amount of total money deposited by both parties adds up to 160,000$, the sum that the both parties have agreed to "hold away from taxes".

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. The Act of Congress- Taxation Act, both cited in the Rules & Laws and as an Act of Congress, states the following:

4 - Tax Evasion
(1) “Tax Evasion” shall be defined as: “Any means by which an individual or company manages monetary assets with the intent to avoid taxation.”
(2) No entity shall be charged with “Tax Evasion” unless found guilty of such crime in Court.
(3) No registered company shall be deregistered on the basis of Tax Evasion unless found guilty of such in Court.
(4) The punishment for “Tax Evasion” shall be not less than $100 and not more than $10,000. The Court may also recommend that the DEC deregister companies on the basis of a guilty verdict.
(5) Any lawyer or the State may sue any individual or company whom they suspect has committed Tax Evasion.

2. The Rules & Laws Commerce section 10.2 which states the punishment & the definition of Tax Evasion are as follows:

10.2 - Tax Evasion
Using unlawful means of business in order to avoid paying taxes where you would have otherwise been required to pay tax.
Per Offence: $100 - $10,000 fine
https://democracycraft.net/threads/tax-evasion-revaluation-act.2425/

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. That ShinHeYing be fined 10,000$ as the maximum punishment for the crime, due to the substantial nature of the fines behind hid to evade taxes (80,000$)
2. That Hong_Kong_101 be fined 10,000$ as the maximum punishment for the crime, due to the substantial nature of the fines behind hid to evade taxes (80,000$)
3. As per Act of Congress - Taxation Act Clause 4 - Tax Evasion (4), which states that the Court may also recommend that the DEC deregister companies on the basis of a guilty verdict, the Commonwealth suggests that the Court carry out this clause in the case of a guilty verdict, and recommend that the DEC deregister both Tang Corp & Hamilton City Bank (Renamed version of the Clockwork Bank)

(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

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 26th day of June 2021

Spoiler: Exhibit 1 - Conversation between Hong_Kong_101 (HKE) and ShinHeYing (Shinyju) regarding tax evasion

Spoiler: Exhibit 2. - ShinHeYing depositing 80,000$ to Tang Corp

Spoiler: Exhibit 3. - Hong_Kong_101 depositing 80,000$ to Clockwork Bank

 

[Matthew100x]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

The defendants @ShinHeYing and @Hong Kong 101 is required to appear before the court in the case of the Commonwealth of Redmont v. ShinHeYing & Hong_Kong_101. 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 familiarize themselves with and be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures.​

 

[ShinHeYing]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT


Canxx01
Prosecution

v.

ShinHeYing
Defendant

Case no: 06- 2021- 12

I ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
The defendant confirmed they received 80k $ from the dissolving of the Rae Evergrand company from the absence of Galavance.
The defendant deposited the received 80k $ into the company Tang as an investment for the company.
The defendant's words may be misunderstood with the extreme lack of context within the situation.


II DEFENCES
1. The company was rightfully divided between 3 people with staff involvement and a staff ticket. The defendant is willing to call up staff as witnesses to this case.
2. The whistleblower is breaking a law by provided private information of the company to the government. The defendant requests for the identity of the whistleblower if possible but the case can really be narrowed down as the company Ray Evergrand only had four executives and Zab recently left the company server which leaves only three executives; The defendants and Trentrick_Lamar. The division of the company and the location of where the remaining funds which now belong to the defendants are considered sensitive company information which was clearly not released to the public as it was in the private executive chat channel of the discord server. The defendant should legally have the right to charge this whistleblower for Corporate Espionage. The defendant requests this to be later stated in a separate trial to keep the court tidy.

3. The words were taken out of context. The conversation was especially taken out of context. Since the defendants had agreed to wait for one of the executives, Zab to return from his leave as he was on a leave during this period. The defendant will call Zab as a witness if the court allows. The defendants wanted to notify Zab of the changes within the company so they didn't want the funds to be changed. Though the words used were harsh, it is the truth. By investing the relocated money into each of the defendant's companies which was the most logical choice, the defendants were not faced with extreme taxes because of the sheer amount of funds that would've been placed on our balances. Below, is the provided context before such statements. The defendant would also like to notify the plaintiff that their first evidence's image isn't showing.

4. During the same period, Tang corp and Clockwork Bank (Renamed back to Hamilton City Bank) had used the funds to grow their company. The money was invested into companies and helped the companies grow. Especially with the Hamilton City Bank providing loans to new and old players alike.
5. Also with the plaintiff requesting both companies to deregister is an unreasonable request. Both Tang and Hamilton City Bank are both established companies. The money from the dividing of Rae Evergrand legally belongs to each of the defendants. The defendant investing their own money back into their own companies should not be a criminal action.
6. I would like to believe since the plaintiff Canxx01 is not representing the government unlike other cases, but representing himself. There is a benefit of the doubt that Canxx01 is unknown of the staff ticket and long processing behind this case. However, please understand that the information presented by this complaint was meant to be kept private from the public. The defendant is not informed whether there was incitement involved between the whistleblower and the plaintiff. The plaintiff will need to provided more information regarding this matter. However the whisleblower has indeed broken a law.

Your honor, this concludes my answer to the complaint.

(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

 

[Canxx01]

Apologies for the first Exhibit not showing, it is fixed now (hopefully).

 

[Canxx01]

Objection, Your Honor.

2. The whistleblower is breaking a law by provided private information of the company to the government. The defendant requests for the identity of the whistleblower if possible but the case can really be narrowed down as the company Ray Evergrand only had four executives and Zab recently left the company server which leaves only three executives; The defendants and Trentrick_Lamar. The division of the company and the location of where the remaining funds which now belong to the defendants are considered sensitive company information which was clearly not released to the public as it was in the private executive chat channel of the discord server. The defendant should legally have the right to charge this whistleblower for Corporate Espionage. The defendant requests this to be later stated in a separate trial to keep the court tidy.

All whistleblowers are protected under the Act of Congress - Whistleblowers Act, which goes as follows:

A
BILL
To

Protect Whistleblowers

The people of Democracy Craft, through their elected Representatives in the Congress and the force of law ordained to that Congress by the people through the constitution, do hereby enact the following provisions into law:

1 - Short Title and Enactment
(1) This Act may be cited as the “Whistleblower Protection Act 2020”.
(2) This Act shall be enacted immediately upon its signage.

2 - Whistleblower
(1) A whistleblower is an entity or individual that presents information to another individual, about a person who is involved in corruption.
(2) If a whistleblower comes forward with information regarding corruption, they can request to stay anonymous.
(3) The person has the right to stay anonymous. If an entity or individual is to reveal a whistleblower they will be subject to fines up to $2000.

Act of Congress - Whistleblowers Act

Congress Vote: 4-1-0 A BILL To Protect Whistleblowers The people of Democracy Craft, through their elected Representatives in the Congress and the force of law ordained to that Congress by the people through the constitution, do hereby enact the following provisions into law: 1 - Short Title...

www.democracycraft.net

If the whistleblower in question would be the recipient of a criminal trial as such, it would set precedent which would violate the 2nd clause (2) and (3), granted the whistleblower wishes to remain anonymous.
If all whistleblowers were charged with corporate espionage, it would defeat the purpose of having them in the first place.

5. Also with the plaintiff requesting both companies to deregister is an unreasonable request. Both Tang and Hamilton City Bank are both established companies. The money from the dividing of Rae Evergrand legally belongs to each of the defendants. The defendant investing their own money back into their own companies should not be a criminal action.

The Commonwealth assures the Defendant that it is not requesting for both companies to deregister, but rather exercising the provisions of the Taxation Act, which states clearly (as noted in the case filing) that a Court may recommend the DEC for the companies to be unregistered, granted a guilty verdict is given.
The Commonwealth also wishes to make sure that the reason for the money transfers to be the recipient of such criminal allegations are due to the conversation taking place in Exhibit 1. (The Commonwealth again apologizes for it not showing before, it should show now.) Though it was still laid out in the facts section anyway, so the Commonwealth wishes that there was no confusion regarding it beforehand.

6. I would like to believe since the plaintiff Canxx01 is not representing the government unlike other cases, but representing himself. There is a benefit of the doubt that Canxx01 is unknown of the staff ticket and long processing behind this case. However, please understand that the information presented by this complaint was meant to be kept private from the public. The defendant is not informed whether there was incitement involved between the whistleblower and the plaintiff. The plaintiff will need to provided more information regarding this matter. However the whisleblower has indeed broken a law.

The Prosecuting Authority, Canxx01, is representing the Commonwealth as the Attorney General of Redmont. As cited in the title of the suit, "The Commonwealth of Redmont v. ShinHeYing & Hong_Kong_101". An acceptable confusion as the Defendant is representing themselves instead of utilizing a practicing attorney for legal representation.

All information taken in the complaint were, as noted in the case draft, information taken from a legal warrant, granted to the Commonwealth ethically, and thoroughly, correlating with the legal code, and are able to be utilized in a court of law.

 

[ShinHeYing]

Objections, Your honor.

As the defendant has stated. The evidence which the plaintiff is using is private company information. Proof can be provided that this information of the chat was taken from the Rae Evergrand discord server. Zab has since left the discord server and left the chat channel. There's is seriously no "anonymous identity" here as there are only 4 executives who have access to the channel. Below is the company discord channel. Currently only three people have access to it, since Zab had left. Seriously, do we really need to figure it out by process of elimination?

According to the Act of Congress - Whistleblowers Act | DemocracyCraft , the whistleblower is supposed to come forward with evidence of corruption. How is it corruption if we're relocating money which belongs to us legally into our respectable companies?

Canxx01 said, " The Prosecuting Authority, Canxx01, is representing the Commonwealth as the Attorney General of Redmont. As cited in the title of the suit, "The Commonwealth of Redmont v. ShinHeYing & Hong_Kong_101". An acceptable confusion as the Defendant is representing themselves instead of utilizing a practicing attorney for legal representation. ".

The title of the case of "The Commonwealth of Redmont v. ShinHeYing & Hong_Kong_101" but it didn't state in the title nor the beginning, "Canx011 representing" in either the case title or the introduction of the case. Which had caused some confusion to the defendant, the defendant thanks the plaintiff for addressing that issue.

 

[SumoMC]

Your honor,

Me and my firm Apex Law Firm have have been retained by the defendant HKE to represent him in the following proceedings. I would request that we be given the proper time to get up to speed and get our statements in order so we can present a proper defense that every citizen is entitled to. Proof of the agreement below.

 

[Matthew100x]

This court thanks the Prosecution and the Defendant for writing out and submitting their arguments and objections. This court has reviewed the information present and will begin analysis on the case and the objections set forth thus far.

The Prosecution's arguments:
The Defandant's of this case are involved in an illegal scheme to avoid taxes. They shuffled money into two companies "Tang Corporation" and "Hamilton Bank (Formerly known as Clockwork Bank)". Therefore the prosecution seeks a guiilty verdict on charges of tax evasion.

The Defendant's arguments:
The Prosecution has illegally ascertained evidence to support their case against the Defendant. The Defendant alleges that the Corporate Espionage law was broken and that this information was private because it was discussed in an executive chat. Therefore information should not have leaked to Prosecuting authorities as it was otherwise classified. In addition, all money that the Defendant's had were legal and was reinvested into the company.

The Prosecution's objections:

If the whistleblower in question would be the recipient of a criminal trial as such, it would set precedent which would violate the 2nd clause (2) and (3), granted the whistleblower wishes to remain anonymous.
If all whistleblowers were charged with corporate espionage, it would defeat the purpose of having them in the first place.

While I am not going to request that the prosecution reveal the source of the whistleblower, I do believe that there needs to be another case held on this issue following this case. The Whistleblower Act pertains to corruption, not to corporate espionage, which has a defined legal definition.

(1) A whistleblower is an entity or individual that presents information to another individual, about a person who is involved in corruption.
(2) If a whistleblower comes forward with information regarding corruption, they can request to stay anonymous.
(3) The person has the right to stay anonymous. If an entity or individual is to reveal a whistleblower they will be subject to fines up to $2000.

Corruption is defined as: "use (of) a government position, elected or otherwise, to benefit one's private interests or corporate ventures. By applying for a position or being elected into a position in government, the player agrees to serve the server over themselves." as per R&L 5.9.

Since the legislation is explicitly clear that a whistleblower is someone who provides information on Corruption, not tax evasion. I cannot explicitly grant whistleblower protections to the individual who leaked this information. Therefore this objection is overruled.

The Commonwealth assures the Defendant that it is not requesting for both companies to deregister, but rather exercising the provisions of the Taxation Act, which states clearly (as noted in the case filing) that a Court may recommend the DEC for the companies to be unregistered, granted a guilty verdict is given.
The Commonwealth also wishes to make sure that the reason for the money transfers to be the recipient of such criminal allegations are due to the conversation taking place in Exhibit 1. (The Commonwealth again apologizes for it not showing before, it should show now.) Though it was still laid out in the facts section anyway, so the Commonwealth wishes that there was no confusion regarding it beforehand.

These are additional arguments to counter-arguments made by the Defendant, not objections, and as such will be ignored within these statements. The Prosecution can resubmit them within their opening statements. Therefore this objection is overruled.

The Defendant's objections:

As the defendant has stated. The evidence which the plaintiff is using is private company information. Proof can be provided that this information of the chat was taken from the Rae Evergrand discord server. Zab has since left the discord server and left the chat channel. There's is seriously no "anonymous identity" here as there are only 4 executives who have access to the channel. Below is the company discord channel. Currently only three people have access to it, since Zab had left. Seriously, do we really need to figure it out by process of elimination?

According to the Act of Congress - Whistleblowers Act | DemocracyCraft , the whistleblower is supposed to come forward with evidence of corruption. How is it corruption if we're relocating money which belongs to us legally into our respectable companies?

You would be correct that the Whistleblower Act protects whistleblowers who report corruption only. Therefore this objection is sustained. If you wish to start another case after this one is finished and only when this case is finished, this court recommends you do so to see if the Courts will grant your request to find out who the whistleblower is. I will be recusing myself from such a case as I am handling this one.

Canxx01 said, " The Prosecuting Authority, Canxx01, is representing the Commonwealth as the Attorney General of Redmont. As cited in the title of the suit, "The Commonwealth of Redmont v. ShinHeYing & Hong_Kong_101". An acceptable confusion as the Defendant is representing themselves instead of utilizing a practicing attorney for legal representation. ".

The title of the case of "The Commonwealth of Redmont v. ShinHeYing & Hong_Kong_101" but it didn't state in the title nor the beginning, "Canx011 representing" in either the case title or the introduction of the case. Which had caused some confusion to the defendant, the defendant thanks the plaintiff for addressing that issue.

These are not objections to any additional arguments but this Court is happy to see courtesy and respect on these matters between Attorneys. Though please keep objections to striking out arguments only so it limits what I have to review over.

The Court's Position in this matter:
First and foremost this Court requests that the Defendants please figure out their legal counsel and have one person submitting arguments. SumoMC may help and assist in writing arguments but if ShinHeYing is leading this case then she should be the only person making posts on this thread.

This Court is also going to suggest that the Prosecution and the Defendant make a Plea Bargain in this matter as arguments submitted by one of the Defendant's show an admission of guilt.

By investing the relocated money into each of the defendant's companies which was the most logical choice, the defendants were not faced with extreme taxes because of the sheer amount of funds that would've been placed on our balances.

This court will go into recess for 72 hours to allow for the discussion of a potential plea bargain. I will not accept any plea bargains that call for the deregistering of either company.

The Defendants may at any time make a post on this thread declining the plea bargain and we shall continue on to opening statements within these proceedings.

 

[SumoMC]

Your honor,

Both of the defendants have retained me as their council in this matter.

 

[Matthew100x]

Have the Plaintiff and Defendant reach a plea deal?

 

[SumoMC]

Have the Plaintiff and Defendant reach a plea deal?

We have not your honor, we denied the offer, my clients won’t admit to a crime they did not commit. The facts have been laid out. If the Attorney General wishes to propose a better deal then we will be willing to listen but the deal in its current state is not acceptable to my clients.

 

[Matthew100x]

Alright, we will be moving onto opening statements. May the Prosecution please begin with their opening statements.

 

[SumoMC]

Your Honor, I am now a State Prosecutor so I must recuse myself from this case but I will have someone to take over from apex

 

[Matthew100x]

Due to the Government's lack of responses for a period greater than 72 hours in addition to the lack of response greater than 72 hours during the plea bargain process, I am going to dismiss this case with prejudice.

Canxx please be more active or ask for extensions. Launching Prosecutions and then abandoning them is not fair to Defendants who have to be called to defend themselves. I am asking @Austin27 or @Vanqsquish (I know Austin is on vacation) to please have a discussion with Canxx on whether or not they can keep up with their caseload.

This Court is dismissed.