Huh, that is one of the most interesting supreme court decisions I think I've read. I kind of agree with it in a text-of-the-law sense.
I would be very curious to see that logic hold up in court these days. They got Al Capone on tax evasion for instance, but wouldn't paying his taxes on ill-got funds have been incriminating?
I would be very curious to see that logic hold up in court these days. They got Al Capone on tax evasion for instance, but wouldn't paying his taxes on ill-got funds have been incriminating?