(06-22-2021, 12:04 AM)nunccoepi Wrote:

(06-21-2021, 11:41 PM)NicholasTheGreat Wrote:

(06-21-2021, 10:10 PM)iStegosauruz Wrote:

(06-21-2021, 08:01 PM)NicholasTheGreat Wrote: So you've taken 20M of TPE but not giving him back 20M.

Shouldn't his balance be reverted back?

TPE was taken based off illegally earned money he exchanged for TPE (i.e. WTs, equipment, etc).

Giving him back the illegal money would be like someone robbing a bank, purchasing a TV with the money they stole, getting caught by the police and being given back the money they shouldn't have had to begin with as a condition of returning the TV. 

In this situation he shouldn't have had the money and as a result shouldn't have also had the TPE that was associated with the purchases he used the money on. Both got forfeited as a result.

To use your bank robbery example: 

- If someone stole $1000 and brought a TV for $500, you have taken the TV AND the $1000, making them out of pocket $1500 instead of the $1000 the person stole originally. That doesn't add up and work. The robber wouldn't get the money back, the TV IS the money in this scenario. 



From the OG post "This means that the last $20.7M that Faded spent was done with money he shouldn’t have had", so you take away what this money was spent on. It's fair enough to remove the TPE but it doesn't make sense to leave him in a 20M hole when you've already taken away the 20M worth of TPE.

I think you might have meant to say that the TV is the tpe in this scenario. 

So to continue with your example, once the robber was caught with the TV and the leftover $500, we would take away the TV and return the $500 to him. Now the robber has the original $1000 that he shouldn't have. So we will take away the entire $1000. So, in our case, with these extra steps added in for clarity, we took away the 60tpe that was bought illegally. Then we returned the $20M to faded that he used to buy the 60tpe illegally. That brings his total stash of illegal money to $130M. Since all of that $130M is illegally gained, we then take the entire $130M. (and then in real life, I presume the TV would also get returned to the rightful owner, but in our case there is no one to return the tpe to).

(06-22-2021, 12:56 AM)NicholasTheGreat Wrote:

(06-22-2021, 12:04 AM)nunccoepi Wrote:

(06-21-2021, 11:41 PM)NicholasTheGreat Wrote:

(06-21-2021, 10:10 PM)iStegosauruz Wrote:

(06-21-2021, 08:01 PM)NicholasTheGreat Wrote: So you've taken 20M of TPE but not giving him back 20M.

Shouldn't his balance be reverted back?

TPE was taken based off illegally earned money he exchanged for TPE (i.e. WTs, equipment, etc).

Giving him back the illegal money would be like someone robbing a bank, purchasing a TV with the money they stole, getting caught by the police and being given back the money they shouldn't have had to begin with as a condition of returning the TV. 

In this situation he shouldn't have had the money and as a result shouldn't have also had the TPE that was associated with the purchases he used the money on. Both got forfeited as a result.

To use your bank robbery example: 

- If someone stole $1000 and brought a TV for $500, you have taken the TV AND the $1000, making them out of pocket $1500 instead of the $1000 the person stole originally. That doesn't add up and work. The robber wouldn't get the money back, the TV IS the money in this scenario. 



From the OG post "This means that the last $20.7M that Faded spent was done with money he shouldn’t have had", so you take away what this money was spent on. It's fair enough to remove the TPE but it doesn't make sense to leave him in a 20M hole when you've already taken away the 20M worth of TPE.

I think you might have meant to say that the TV is the tpe in this scenario. 

So to continue with your example, once the robber was caught with the TV and the leftover $500, we would take away the TV and return the $500 to him. Now the robber has the original $1000 that he shouldn't have. So we will take away the entire $1000. So, in our case, with these extra steps added in for clarity, we took away the 60tpe that was bought illegally. Then we returned the $20M to faded that he used to buy the 60tpe illegally. That brings his total stash of illegal money to $130M. Since all of that $130M is illegally gained, we then take the entire $130M. (and then in real life, I presume the TV would also get returned to the rightful owner, but in our case there is no one to return the tpe to).

But then Faded would have 20M more in his account, meaning he wouldn't have the negative balance be that high then. 

Point 1
- There is 128M of stolen money. You can't add to that or take it away, that is the number he stole. This can't change. This is his fine. 

Point 2
- If you were to refund that TPE, you give him back 20M as you said. That doesn't get added to the fine, this number is seperate from the fine. 

You said it yourself, you're 'refunding' the money but it hasn't been added to his account and it shouldn't be added to the fine. 

As a result, the 20M should be added to his current account.

(06-22-2021, 12:56 AM)NicholasTheGreat Wrote:

(06-22-2021, 12:04 AM)nunccoepi Wrote:

(06-21-2021, 11:41 PM)NicholasTheGreat Wrote:

(06-21-2021, 10:10 PM)iStegosauruz Wrote:

(06-21-2021, 08:01 PM)NicholasTheGreat Wrote: So you've taken 20M of TPE but not giving him back 20M.

Shouldn't his balance be reverted back?

TPE was taken based off illegally earned money he exchanged for TPE (i.e. WTs, equipment, etc).

Giving him back the illegal money would be like someone robbing a bank, purchasing a TV with the money they stole, getting caught by the police and being given back the money they shouldn't have had to begin with as a condition of returning the TV. 

In this situation he shouldn't have had the money and as a result shouldn't have also had the TPE that was associated with the purchases he used the money on. Both got forfeited as a result.

To use your bank robbery example: 

- If someone stole $1000 and brought a TV for $500, you have taken the TV AND the $1000, making them out of pocket $1500 instead of the $1000 the person stole originally. That doesn't add up and work. The robber wouldn't get the money back, the TV IS the money in this scenario. 



From the OG post "This means that the last $20.7M that Faded spent was done with money he shouldn’t have had", so you take away what this money was spent on. It's fair enough to remove the TPE but it doesn't make sense to leave him in a 20M hole when you've already taken away the 20M worth of TPE.

I think you might have meant to say that the TV is the tpe in this scenario. 

So to continue with your example, once the robber was caught with the TV and the leftover $500, we would take away the TV and return the $500 to him. Now the robber has the original $1000 that he shouldn't have. So we will take away the entire $1000. So, in our case, with these extra steps added in for clarity, we took away the 60tpe that was bought illegally. Then we returned the $20M to faded that he used to buy the 60tpe illegally. That brings his total stash of illegal money to $130M. Since all of that $130M is illegally gained, we then take the entire $130M. (and then in real life, I presume the TV would also get returned to the rightful owner, but in our case there is no one to return the tpe to).

But then Faded would have 20M more in his account, meaning he wouldn't have the negative balance be that high then. 

Point 1
- There is 128M of stolen money. You can't add to that or take it away, that is the number he stole. This can't change. This is his fine. 

Point 2
- If you were to refund that TPE, you give him back 20M as you said. That doesn't get added to the fine, this number is seperate from the fine. 

You said it yourself, you're 'refunding' the money but it hasn't been added to his account and it shouldn't be added to the fine. 

As a result, the 20M should be added to his current account.