A court in Romania has rejected a request by influencer Andrew Tate to return assets that were seized during investigations into the case in which he is charged with human trafficking, rape and forming a criminal gang to sexually exploit women.
  • Luft@lemm.eeEnglish
    138·
    1 year ago

    Lol he moved to Romania bc they have shitty sketchy laws. Get fucked idiot

    • themeatbridge@lemmy.worldEnglish
      122·
      1 year ago

      And it was working. They weren’t trying to prosecute him until he bragged about moving to Romania to avoid prosecution. He embarrassed the Romanian law enforcement, so they decided to just go after him.

      • nutsack@lemmy.worldEnglish
        37·
        1 year ago

        that’s the thing about these countries that run on systems of bribes. the only rule is don’t run your mouth about it in the media.

  • jtk@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
    85·
    1 year ago

    I was going to say “influencer” is quite a soft term for “sex trafficker” but, when I ranked the terms, it turned out “influencer” is the more insulting one.

    • Madrigal@lemmy.worldEnglish
      20·
      1 year ago

      In my experience, influencers are people who:

      • destroy natural monuments and works of art for attention
      • play cruel pranks on others for attention
      • present a completely false image of themselves and their lives
      • constantly demand special treatment while offering nothing in return

      And about a million other things I can’t think of right now.

      In short, they’re among the most awful people around. You really don’t need a more insulting term.

    • themeatbridge@lemmy.worldEnglish
      68·
      1 year ago

      Youtube has no morals, no standards. It is a business, and their business is eyes. The more eyes, the more ads, the more revenue. Everything else is nuance.

    • xmunk@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      55·
      1 year ago

      I’m still angry that Jordan Peterson gets so much shit thrown up on YT. As a Canadian, I’d just like to say we prefer being associated with Beiber.

      • Destraight@lemm.eeEnglish
        3·
        1 year ago

        Oh you mean the boy toy singer who spitted on his fans that like his music. Yeah? You want to be associated with that piece of shit?

      • OceanSoap@lemmy.mlEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        Imma catch hate here, but I’m a woman, and I like the guy. I watch some of his stuff, though I don’t dip into his lectures on religion. Just not for me.

        • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.eeEnglish
          7·
          1 year ago

          you’re at the narrow end of the wedge right now. “put your shoulders back when you walk”, “clean your room”, “don’t lie”, all good advice that can be had anywhere. it’s just that the further into it you get, the more you arrive at his core philosophy, which is that there is a natural hierarchy to all human relationships and that cishet white men should be on the top of it because they’re the only people capable of bringing and maintaining order in the face of the “chaos dragon” of femininity, and that the history of violent western european dominance over much of the world is to be taken as prima facie evidence that violent western european dominance of the world is an ideal to be asserted wherever possible. it’s repackaged “white man’s burden” stuff mixed with a bunch of badly misinterpreted freud.

        • Pratai@lemmy.caEnglish
          1·
          1 year ago

          Ahh! So it’s safe to assume that you’re also a satanistic Christian?

      • aidan@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        Out of every “Conservative influencer” Peterson is the least unpalatable.

        • Honytawk@lemmy.zipEnglish
          1·
          1 year ago

          You mean mr I’m-addicted-to-Benzos-and-to-detox-I-let-russians-put-me-in-a-month-long-coma-resulting-in-brain-damage?

          • aidan@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            1 year ago

            Yeah? I mean, I don’t agree with him on most things, but for all you can criticize him for, why that?

            Drug dependence doesn’t make someone inherently a bad person, nor does being Russian.

    • Thrashy@lemmy.worldEnglish
      8·
      1 year ago

      My understanding (entirely mediated by the Behind the Bastards episodes about him, so take it with a grain of salt) is that he never posted directly to YT; everything of his up there was and continues to be reuploads from his followers. So, regrettably, even though Romania has thrown him into a hole in the earth, Tate-stans will continue to spread the bad word.

      • Maeve@kbin.social
        1·
        1 year ago

        Hey, thanks for that! It makes me feel a bit better about it! I sometimes watch Behind the Bastards and haven’t disproven anything they claim, but I don’t always take the time to fact-check them, either.

        • Thrashy@lemmy.worldEnglish
          3·
          1 year ago

          I’ve caught a few slips of the tongue and minor errors when Robert touches on things I have particular knowledge of, but not any gross misrepresentations. The warning was more along the lines of “I haven’t gone to primary sources on this” rather than casting aspersions on the podcast.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.ukEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        Right, but YouTube have already proven that they’re perfectly prepared to take off platform activities into account.

  • cheese_greater@lemmy.worldEnglish
    23·
    1 year ago

    Please your dishonor, I haven’t nearly fucked around enough and I wanna take it up a notch. What about Trump, treat me like a king

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldBEnglish
    11·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:

    BUCHAREST, Romania (AP) — A court in Romania on Monday rejected a request by influencer Andrew Tate to return assets that were seized during investigations into the case in which he is charged with human trafficking, rape and forming a criminal gang to sexually exploit women.

    The decision comes nearly a year after Tate, his brother Tristan and two Romanian women were arrested near Bucharest.

    After their arrest, Romanian authorities seized 15 luxury cars, 14 designer watches and cash in several currencies.

    Romania’s anti-organized crime agency said at the time that the assets could be used to cover the expenses of the investigation and compensation for victims if authorities could prove they were gained through illicit activities.

    Andrew Tate, who has amassed 8.4 million followers on the social media platform X, has repeatedly claimed that prosecutors have no evidence against him and that there is a political conspiracy to silence him.

    He was previously banned from various prominent social media platforms for expressing misogynistic views and for hate speech.

    The original article contains 312 words, the summary contains 169 words. Saved 46%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • Gigan@lemmy.worldEnglish
    11·
    1 year ago

    Romanian authorities seized 15 luxury cars, 14 designer watches and cash in several currencies. The vehicles included a Rolls-Royce, a Ferrari, a Porsche, a BMW, an Aston Martin and a Mercedes-Benz. Authorities said the assets were worth an estimated 3.6 million euros ($3.9 million).

    A trial date hasn’t been confirmed. The case is still being discussed in the preliminary chamber stages

    I know people don’t like Andrew Tate, but this seems kind of fucked. They’re just keeping him locked up without a trial and taking his stuff? If this happened to a black man in the US people would be pissed.

    • fiat_lux@kbin.social
      71·
      1 year ago

      They’re just keeping him locked up

      He’s free to move around the country, he hasn’t even been on house arrest since August. Save your concern for the actual locked up people on shitty minor drug possession charges in the US.

      • Gigan@lemmy.worldEnglish
        14·
        1 year ago

        Save your concern for the actual locked up people on shitty minor drug possession charges in the US.

        I am concerned about that too, but it’s not the topic of the article.

        • CmdrShepardEnglish
          21·
          1 year ago

          They’re responding to your own hypothetical about a black man getting arrested in the US…

    • Wrench@lemmy.worldEnglish
      39·
      1 year ago

      I think freezing assets is a common practice when said assets may be put towards restitution for the victims if found guilty.

      I have no idea how Romainia does it, or if they can be trusted to actually put the money towards the victims. But on paper, it seems like it could be for good reasons.

      Or it could be for civil forfeiture kind of abuse of authority. Guess we’ll have to wait and see.

      • Gigan@lemmy.worldEnglish
        4·
        1 year ago

        Or it could be for civil forfeiture kind of abuse of authority.

        That’s what I was thinking, but I’m not an expert on the Romanian legal system either.

    • Buffalox@lemmy.worldEnglish
      24·
      1 year ago

      What have you been smoking? This is completely normal practice everywhere AFAIK, if your wealth and assets were involved in a crime, or were gained from crime, they are 100% confiscated when judged guilty. If they aren’t seized ASAP, there’s a chance criminals can move it out of reach of authorities.
      Regarding his possible innocence, I don’t think you have actually read about the case. The raid on his properties was because the police got notice about an American woman who managed to get a message out about being kidnapped. This woman was found on the premises, and the prosecutor has no less than 7 victims to testify!
      If he is not guilty, which is doubtful, he will get everything back.

      • Gigan@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        1 year ago

        they are 100% confiscated when judged guilty

        Yeah, and that’s fine. But he hasn’t had his trial yet so hasn’t been found guilty, was my concern.

        • Buffalox@lemmy.worldEnglish
          21·
          1 year ago

          Again: If they aren’t seized ASAP, there’s a chance criminals can move it out of reach of authorities.

          If he is not guilty, which is doubtful, he will get everything back.
          And remember it’s ONLY things that relate to the case that are temporarily seized, while the trial is running.

        • Buffalox@lemmy.worldEnglish
          11·
          1 year ago

          So are you also in favor of killers keeping the murder weapon, and be free to move around, while the trial is running?
          You are also wrong about Tate being locked up, he was in house arrest, but have been allowed to move around freely for months now.
          I have personally tried to have things seized by the police, and yes it’s a major nuisance annoyance inconvenience and all that. When I got my stuff back, the value had declined dramatically. But despite that, I understand that’s the way it has to be. I don’t get why you can’t understand that?

          • Gigan@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            1 year ago

            It seems like there’s a lot of contradictions in this case.

            1. No, a murderer shouldn’t get to keep the murder weapon, because it’s obviously evidence in the trial. I don’t think his luxury assets are evidence in the crime. (Unless he was smuggling girls in the trunk of his car, but it doesn’t sound like that’s why they were confiscated.)

            2. If someone was charged with murder, they shouldn’t be released until after the trial because they could be a danger to other people. Tate was released, hasn’t been found guilty, yet the authorities are taking a bunch of his stuff.

            • Buffalox@lemmy.worldEnglish
              9·
              1 year ago

              I’m not arguing Tate should be in prison now, so your number 2 point is a strawman. You claimed: “They’re just keeping him locked up without a trial”, which is completely false. Why not just admit you made a mistake?

              The part about a killer walking free, was to illustrate that criminal evidence or things that must be seized, can’t be allowed to be in the hands of a potential criminal during trial. In Tate’s case obviously because he can move his values out of the country.

              To what degree they were used in the crime or were gains from the crime I do not claim to know. But why do you think he should be able to keep gains from crime during trial?

            • Honytawk@lemmy.zipEnglish
              1·
              1 year ago

              Items bought from the money gained in a bank robbery also gets confiscated.

              So it is only logical that all the items bought with the money gained through sex trafficking also gets confiscated.

        • Honytawk@lemmy.zipEnglish
          1·
          1 year ago

          That is his own fault.

          If he didn’t flee to Romania, he would have had his trail already in the UK.

    • wolf_2202@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      23·
      1 year ago

      He is on record lauding Romania for its corruption, citing it as a major reason for having moved there. Dunno what to tell to tell him. He is presently bitching about reaping the exact crop he sowed.

    • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.eeEnglish
      6·
      1 year ago

      Happens in the US all the time, actually. Tate is charged with a crime, and in a position analogous to someone who’s out on bail in the US. He’s free atm, just not allowed to leave the country. His assets have been seized, which is something that also happens all the time in America (https://www.aclupa.org/en/issues/criminal-justice-reform/civil-asset-forfeiture). The difference is Tate has actually been charged with a crime and, afaik, his assets will be returned to him if he’s found not guilty of the charges against him. In America, your assets can be seized without you ever actually being charged with a crime, and they’re not returned to you unless you go to court to prove your innocence. There’s a legal loophole where they declare that it’s your stuff, not you, that is on trial and stuff does not have civil rights, so taking your stuff does not violate your right to due process and suspicion (not of any crime in particular, just generally seeming suspicious) allows for the presumption of guilt. The people who decide whether or not your stuff is innocent of a crime also get to keep 100% of it if they decide that it is not, the person whose stuff is seized doesn’t have the right to counsel or even to know that there is a hearing taking place about seizing their stuff. Often times, they only find out that their stuff is on trial after the trial has completed, the stuff has been found “guilty” in absentia, and the police have come to steal it at gunpoint. I feel like it bears repeating that they often have no intention of accusing the owner of any crime, the decision as to whether to take the stuff is made by the people who get to keep the stuff, and that the matter is often already decided with no opportunity for appeal by the time the owner is made aware that any proceedings against them have begun. They often offer to return some of the assets in exchange for the owner’s agreement to not pursue the case further, essentially paying you off with your own money and relying on the fact that proving the “innocence” of your stuff will be expensive and time consuming (https://www.newsweek.com/theft-another-name-its-time-fight-back-against-civil-forfeiture-opinion-1821368)

      So yeah, actually things in the US are much worse than what’s happening to Tate, and have been for some time. Google “civil asset forfeiture abuse” if you’d like to know more, but if you take only one thing with you from this discussion, let it be the fact that in 2014 the police stole more money than burglars, and they have taken more every year since 2004 (https://www.nemannlawoffices.com/blog/law-enforcement-seized-more-from-people-than-burglars-stole-last-year.cfm)

      Land of the free.