Willful blindness (sometimes called willful ignorance or contrived ignorance) is a term used in law to describe a situation in which an individual seeks to avoid civil or criminal liability for a wrongful act by intentionally putting himself in a position where he will be unaware of facts which would render him liable.
For example, in a number of cases, persons transporting packages containing illegal drugs have asserted that they never asked what the contents of the packages were, and therefore lacked the requisite intent to break the law. Such defenses have not succeeded, as courts have been quick to determine that the defendant should have known what was in the package, and exercised criminal recklessness by failing to find out before delivering it.
A famous example of such a defense being denied occurred in In re Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643 (7th Cir. 2003), in which the defendants argued that their file-swapping technology was designed in such a way that they had no way of monitoring the content of swapped files, and suggested that their inability to monitor the activities of users meant that they could not be contributing to copyright infringement by the users.
The court held that this was willful blindness on the defendant's part, and would not constitute a defense to a claim of contributory infringement.
My personal opinion (I am not a lawyer and am not giving legal advice)...
High Level Brokers (not the subs)involved with Agape and receiving commissions over and above the high interested returned to investors on money that was allegedly invested with a private bridge lender - as well as bankers that allowed the deposits of said funds and disbursements thereof, ... knowing that there being no logical explanation as to how that lender is generating those ridiculously high returns, should be considered criminally negligent. or at least partially responsible and subject to complete surrender of any assets or gains.
Our Strength and Unity
Our Strength and Unity
