Gypsy Nirvana
- Thread starter TWS
- Start date
420God
Well-Known Member
And Subcool thinks that's karma~~~> https://www.rollitup.org/subcools-old-school-organics/715548-karma-can-not-escaped.html
racerboy71
bud bootlegger
nirvana seeds is not gypsy nirvana..
gypsy nirvana owns(ed) the seed boutique, a very separate entity from nirvana seeds..
gypsy nirvana owns(ed) the seed boutique, a very separate entity from nirvana seeds..
|B3RNY|
Well-Known Member
Good to know, I assumed he owned Nirvana seeds.. I've never ordered their seeds (boutique) by my opinions stand.. . nobody deserves jail time for selling seeds, being an as$hole or hiding from cops... looks as though he was right in hiding. Hopeully the rat gets his karma back, SoB.
racerboy71
bud bootlegger
yeah, he owns seedbay as well hgk, that's where you could buy some of gypsy's own creations from..
greenghost420
Well-Known Member
yea i was checking out seedbay i think it is, they had some nice shit, tons of storys of people getting ripped though
Jogro
Well-Known Member
I agree, but it looks like its more than just selling ceeds:
Don't know how hard/easy its going to be to make these "conspiracy" charges stick, but it sounds like they wanted this guy pretty bad. He's also been indicted for money laundering, and that particular charge could be a tough one to beat.
yesum
Well-Known Member
^^ Was not clear if marijuana meant seeds or pot? If he was into moving pot then that is something else again. Not that any of it should draw a sentence or fine.
The laundering money... would any seedbank have to come up with fancy money tricks to avoid getting asked where they got all the money? The DEA so often hypes stuff up that I am thinking he was just moving seeds and had to be creative with the money from their sale.
The laundering money... would any seedbank have to come up with fancy money tricks to avoid getting asked where they got all the money? The DEA so often hypes stuff up that I am thinking he was just moving seeds and had to be creative with the money from their sale.
greenghost420
Well-Known Member
waiting for tax evasion or racketeering charges. you know they are trying...
Jogro
Well-Known Member
You'd have to read the text of the actual indictment to know what was meant there, but FWIW, under US Federal law, viable ce-eds are considered "mari-juana".
It was "conspiracy". Again hard to know what that means without reading the actual indictment.
Maybe it just meant he knew that the se-eds he was moving were going to be used in an illegal commercial grow. . .even if he had no more involvement in said grow other than selling the beans.
Also, an indictment is one thing. . .actually proving a case beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law something else. The MO of agencies like this is first locate guy they want to nab, then catch him, then throw the book at him, charging him with anything and everything they have even the slightest hint of evidence for, even if they really don't have the "goods" to make it stick. The idea is to scare the defendant with massive charges, and ridiculous penalties, and also massive legal expenses, so that he opts to plead guilty instead of even trying to fight it. Sometimes this works. . .sometimes not.
Again, don't know, you'd have to read the details of the indictment, and then see what evidence was presented in court.
In fact, since possessing and selling beans is perfectly legal in England and many other places, for many banks, there is simply no need for "money laundering" at all. They can run a legal open books business, and report their income.
Maybe this guy did try to launder money. . .maybe not.
racerboy71
bud bootlegger
all very well said jogro, not that i'd expect anything different from you.
Jogro
Well-Known Member
If he's not a US citizen and his business wasn't conducted in the USA, he shouldn't owe US taxes, and I'm not sure how the Feds can make a case for tax evasion, let alone a criminal one.
On "racketeering", a full discussion on that is way beyond my ability, but my understanding is that the charge implies a pattern of behavior related to certain specific crimes, usually associated with mob-like organized crime. Certain drug/narcotic crimes, including sales and manufacture could merit a charge of "racketeering". While the original RICO act was supposedly aimed at breaking up real mob activity, the statues are so vague that RICO could (and has) been aimed at any number of "small fish" with multiple applicable offenses.
Again, I don't know exactly what evidence the Feds have here, but I suspect it probably "could" be applied here. But just because it "can" doesn't mean it makes sense to do it. Proving RICO charges requires a higher level of prosecutorial effort, and the penalties associated with it are so severe it really ups the "ante" so to speak. It may be the Feds can't make a case like that stick, or even that they feel they have so much other evidence, they don't "need" to.
Again, don't know.
greenghost420
Well-Known Member
like you said, we need to see the affidavit. but when you launder money you evading taxes usually lol i would love to see the indictment details!