You say that there are no single arguments, that it could be a shotgun approach. The defence counsels just want to keep throwing up roadblocks so that the judge keeps having to acquiesce to their arguments. When you make the distinction between personal gain and gain going to groups, you mean you have to be able to prove that all the stolen goods, money taken by intimidation, or other resources go into a collective pot, a central bank account that all the different players draw on? When you say “enablers”, would they be legitimate firms that invest money for individuals or groups that the average person would normally go to? Or would these people go out and hire the best chartered accountants, investment counsellors, and lawyers to ensure their ability to conceal that they are engaged in a collective rather than an individual endeavour?
On May 12th, 2009. See this statement in context.