A very thin line here, when looked at from a different perspective it borders around the state of ones mind, and this holds water to such an extent that many covert undercover operations have broke down because of it, when this border line has been encroached purely by a premeditated event on the basis of being beneficial and or to the cause by luring someone to be a part of, something they would not have otherwise undertaken due to not having any knowledge of it, these type of scenarios hold judicial legislature and in many cases have resulted in otherwise guilty parties being acquitted, or at the very least, found not guilty, replace law enforcement agents with VIP managers/CS, affiliates, casino staff, and crimes with deposit bonuses, and it makes interesting reading.
ENTRAPMENT
A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.
However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favourable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.
On the other hand, if the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt whether the person had any intent to commit the crime except for inducement or persuasion on the part of some Government officer or agent, then the person is not guilty.
In slightly different words: Even though someone may have [sold drugs], as charged by the government, if it was the result of entrapment then he is not guilty. Government agents entrapped him if three things occurred:
- First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.
- Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.
- And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.
On the issue of entrapment the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped by government agents.
If a person had no intent of depositing at a casino until he read a `Special deposit bonus just for you` email, then I personally think cases like these hold water, Lawyers fuelled by greed they may be, but and it`s a huge but, the best Lawyers in the game are the best, because they win, they win because, like any successful in the limelight word of mouth professions advertising, they weigh up the odds before even thinking of taking on such cases.
The third pointer I bolded and underlined, if found to be the case, then it`s a very close call imo.
)
.
