=========================  Criminal Case 2028  =========================

    the Reformed Bank of Agora violated R2144 by registering while
    having the same basis (BobTHJ and Ivan Hope CXXVII) as the
    Protection Racket, a registered player.


Caller:                                 root

Judge:                                  ais523
Judgement:                              GUILTY/APOLOGY



Called by root:                         23 Jun 2008 03:28:11 GMT
Defendant Reformed Bank of Agora informed:
                                        23 Jun 2008 21:39:57 GMT
Pre-trial phase ended:                  30 Jun 2008 21:39:57 GMT
Assigned to ais523:                     01 Jul 2008 21:36:09 GMT
Judged GUILTY/APOLOGY by ais523:        03 Jul 2008 15:50:41 GMT


Gratuitous Arguments by BobTHJ:

While the basis of the RBOA and Protection Racket may have been the
same at the time of RBOA's registration such is no longer the case.
Less than 12 hours after the registration of the RBOA comex joined the
Protection Racket causing their bases to become distinct. I also note
that these are distinct contracts designed two serve two very
different purposes, and the overlapping in bases was not an attempted
scam (as the provision in R2144 was added to prevent) but an

On a side note, I would remind players who are critical of the
Protection Racket agreement that by harshly dealing with the RBOA in
this case as a result of the overlapping membership you would be
corrupting the very judicial system you claim to wish to keep


Gratuitous Arguments by omd:

I did not join "Protection Racket".  In fact, I
attempted to join a contract titled "Proposal Racket".  Bonus points
if you know why.


Judge ais523's Arguments:

First, based on the evidence that was given at the time that the CFJ was
filed, and on my own records, there is no doubt that the Reformed Bank
of Agora did in fact violate this rule. Therefore, trivially GUILTY.

Rule 2144 encourages me, in this circumstance, to exile the ninny.
However, I think I understand and have carefully weighed the full
implications of not exiling em, and have concluded that this punishment
would in this circumstance be overkill; the two partnerships no longer
have identical bases, and it does not seem that the RBoA was intended to
be used in a scam by its basis, nor that there was anything sinister
about the duplicate registration other than a simple oversight.
Therefore, a much smaller penalty is appropriate.

I don't quite think a null punishment is appropriate here, as there is
good reason (and precedent) to give minor punishments for oversights to
encourage people to be more careful in following the rules. Therefore, I
impose what is in my opinion the second-smallest appropriate and
possible punishment, which is a verdict on sentencing of APOLOGY with a
null set of prescribed words.