To be fair, if you’re developing assets in the criminal world they’re going to tend to be criminals doing crimes. Asking them to stop doing crimes while they work with you is just asking for them to blow cover.
That doesn’t mean we don’t mitigate harm. But the headline premise per se isn’t wrong.
That would be interesting case law, for a buyer to sue for damages.
Same scenario: If the government was undercover for scammers and in turn scamming people.
While the govt would receive persecution immunity, there is no immunity for damages.
> That would be interesting case law, for a buyer to sue for damages
Do addicts win suits against their dealers? Genuine question.
To be fair, why should they "develop assets in the criminal world"?
Asset as in, someone that tells you otherwise secret or unobtainable information. That’s one of the ways the FBI and similar organisations works to gain intelligence on criminal enterprises, with the goal of ultimately bringing them to justice.
To paraphrase Willie Sutton’s probably apocryphal answer to the question of why he robbed banks, ‘Because that’s where the money is.’
I remember seeing this market on Dread many years back. Crazy to know it was run by the fed
It's really not so crazy