or does anyone else think the following news story is absolutely incredible?
http://www.allvoices.com/s/event-7097155/aHR0cDovL3d3dy50eXBpY2FsbHlzcGFuaXNoLmNvbS9uZXdzL3B1Ymxpc2gvYXJ0aWNsZV8yNzYwOS5zaHRtbA==
It's like letting the 'Great train robbers' pay for a crack defence lawyer from the proceeds of the robbery.
The judge must be blinkered if he thinks the paintings were purchased with 'clean' money.
Who is he kidding when he says,
' They may not have been purchased with any illicit money.'. The judge should be 100% sure they were not paid for with illicit money.
and, ' The court does not know of any illicit origin of the item.'. No they were only paid for with 'dirty' money. As far as we know he didn't burgle a house to get them.
How can the judge let these things be sold now before the case has concluded? If found guilty will Roca have to re-imburse whoever is guardian of the paintings and his other ill-gotten gains?
It sickens me to the stomach to realise that the corruption that put Roca in court is continuing. It is going to pay his lawyers and most probably sweeten the judge and will certainly see him walk free and to a comfortable lifestyle. Yet the innocent buyers who lost thousands from his wrong doing will not see a penny of their money and in some cases their life savings.
Where's the justice in that?
Is it all a charade?
This message was last edited by sandra on 22/10/2010.