Can you be punished for planning a crime and what constitutes &quot;planning&quot;?
<p>I just read a different question here on Law.SE that asked something along the lines of &quot;Would it be illegal to do XYZ? I want to do this, but I'm not sure if it's legal.&quot;</p>
<p>So, that seems like a completely reasonable question and I don't think anyone <em>should</em> be punished for it. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that I've heard people being arrested (and convicted) for planning to do a crime. Usually it was something big like murder or terrorism or whatever. However, big or small shouldn't really be relevant, I think.</p>
<p>So, clearly, there is a line somewhere there between &quot;it's acceptable to think about committing this crime&quot; and &quot;it's not acceptable to think about it <em>this seriously</em>&quot;. But what is it?</p>
<p>Since this is a rather generic principle, I assume that most countries will have similar rules regarding this. If that's too broad, then I'm OK with narrowing it down to European laws (I'm from Latvia).</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Can you be punished for planning a crime and what constitutes &quot;planning&quot;?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The intent to commit certain classes of crimes is punishable. That being said, there is a difference between intent and a mere wish.</p>
<p>Intent is inferred from statements or circumstances indicating that a person's actions were (or are) devised toward knowingly committing the underlying crime. The <a href="http://heimatundrecht.de/sites/default/files/dokumente/Black%27sLaw4th.pdf" rel="noreferrer">Black's Law Dictionary</a> defines <em>intent</em> as &quot;<em>[D]esign, resolve, or determination with which [a] person acts. [...] [M]ental action at its most advanced point [...]. It is the exercise of intelligent will, the mind being fully aware of the nature and consequences of the act which is about to be done</em>&quot; (brackets added).</p>
<p>By contrast, a wish that goes no further than fantasizing or expressing &quot;<em>I want to do this</em>&quot; usually is inconsequential from a legal standpoint. One exception to that relates to promoting offenses such as terrorism, murder, and arguably pedophilia. Even if it is proved that the person making those expressions has no propensity or intent to indulge in the criminal conduct he depicts, the expressions themselves might encourage others to do so. That encouragement makes it more difficult for a government to prevent those crimes from being committed and to identify the perpetrator(s).</p>

<h2>It’s a crime if it’s a crime</h2>
<p>For example, under <a href="/questions/tagged/australia" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;australia&#39;" rel="tag">australia</a> anti-terrorism law, it’s a <a href="https://www.ag.gov.au/national-security/australias-counter-terrorism-laws/terrorist-act-offences" rel="noreferrer">crime</a> to:</p>
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li>commit a terrorist act</li>
<li>plan or prepare for a terrorist act</li>
<li>finance terrorism or a terrorist</li>
<li>provide or receive training connected with terrorist acts</li>
<li>possess things connected with terrorist acts</li>
<li>collect or make documents likely to facilitate terrorist acts.</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<p>When <em>thinking about</em> crosses the line into “plan or prepare”, “possess things” and “collect or make documents” is a matter for the prosecution and defense to argue and the jury to decide.</p>

<p>There's another aspect to it that you asked about in the text of your question (not the title).  And I'm not trying to &quot;call any other answers <em>wrong</em>&quot;, but you may be interested in some other thoughts.</p>
<h2>&quot;I'm not sure it's illegal&quot;: No one knows <em>all</em> the law.</h2>
<p>The gray areas are a big problem. Very few people have read the statute, to say nothing of the developed case law.</p>
<p>Seriously. A lot of people can't tell murder from self-defense, and the USA has an endless parade of court cases where that is the matter in dispute! (disputing the facts and how the law applies to them).</p>
<p>But most of the time, when people can't figure out if something is a crime, and where these distinctions matter, it's a smaller matter like tax fraud.  So I disagree with your &quot;big or small shouldn't matter&quot;, it kinda does.</p>
<h2>On a wobbler, asking <em>actually helps you</em></h2>
<p>Again this is more likely on smaller matters.</p>
<p>When criminality <em>is not entirely clear</em>, it greatly aids your case when you consult licensed experts.  (and follow their advice).</p>
<p><strong>It's all about <em>mens rea</em>, or &quot;guilty mind&quot;.</strong> If you didn't intend to commit a crime, <em>showing that you consulted counsel and followed their advice</em> shows that you did not have a guilty mind.  In my country criminality is based on &quot;guilty mind&quot;.</p>
<p>For instance, to the American IRS tax authority, showing you followed the advice of your CPA reduces it from &quot;tax fraud&quot; to &quot;tax error&quot; and you get away with simply paying back tax and interest.  Played for laughs on <em>Breaking Bad</em>, when Benecke was shown to have relied on a tax accountant who was incompetent. (this wouldn't work in the real world because the CPA's lack of qualifications were obvious.)</p>
<p>It's not as <em>generally</em> effective on big crimes, because how do you justify asking your attorney how to rob a bank? You can't. So it must be a reasonable person's inquiry, so it must pertain to your lawful activity such as being a bodyguard or police officer, e.g. &quot;Rules of Engagement&quot; for when you can shoot a citizen.  In fact police departments have good legal counsel on this who develop training programs.  As long as the training program is reasonable, an officer saying &quot;My behavior conformed with our training program&quot; will more easily convince the jury.  (even if the training program is wrong in law).</p>
<p>Another example: Suppose I am a Holocaust museum.  In my country political campaign expenses are not tax deductible, so organizations that benefit from tax deductible contributions are not allowed to politicize except &quot;de minimis lobbying&quot;.   However, the government is planning to pass a law prohibiting possession of &quot;things connected with terrorist acts&quot;, <em>which is basically our whole museum</em>.  What does &quot;de minimis&quot; mean here?  Are we allowed to go whole-hog to fight for a law that is directly in our interest?  That is exactly the kind of situation where the tax authorities <em>want you to talk with experts</em>.</p>
<p>Again, if you are earnestly making effort to avoid violating the law, that removes <em>mens rea</em> (guilty mind).</p>
<h2>One other thing: lawyer discussions are privileged</h2>
<p>Your conversation with your lawyer and tax accountant are <em>privileged</em>, meaning not admissible in court.  (the lawyer/accountant can't narc you and can't be forced to testify as to your conduct).</p>
<p>Which means, if you have any questions about a crime, your lawyer is the one person you CAN talk to about it.  (or your accountant if it relates to money).</p>
<p>Talking to someone not retained as YOUR attorney or accountant is not privileged at all, and it can be damning evidence against you if someone says &quot;Yeah, defendant talked to me about doing that crime&quot;.</p>

<p>The most common offense related to planning a crime would be &quot;attempt&quot;. If you have taken a concrete step towards commission of a crime, especially if it is not subsequently abandoned, that is an &quot;attempt&quot; to commit a crime, which is a crime.</p>
<p>Likewise, if you direct someone to commit a crime, that is solicitation of a crime.</p>
<p>The general class of crimes that are attempts, solicitation, and conspiracies, is called &quot;inchoate crimes&quot;.</p>
<p>But, mere planning a crime, without a concrete step to actually carry out the plan, usually does not itself constitute a crime.</p>
<p>Also, if your plans to carry out a crime are discovered, and someone, in fact, carries out a crime according to your plan, that is strong, although not irrefutable, circumstantial evidence that if you committed that crime, that it was intentional and pre-meditated, and that if it isn't clear who committed the crime, that you are the person who did so. The more specific the plan, and more the plan is not the only plausible way to commit the crime which could have (and usually would have) been carried out in another way, the strong the circumstantial evidence tends to be. If the plan names names, places, times, and modus operandi it is stronger evidence than an entry in a to do list &quot;think about robbing a bank somewhere&quot;).</p>

<p>You will not be punished for planning a crime if you present it as a work of fiction.</p>
<p>Some examples:
In the movie The Act of Killing</p>
<p>(<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2375605/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2375605/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1</a>)</p>
<p>the real life participants of mass murder describe going to watch Al Pacino films, and other American Gangster movies, to &quot;learn how to act more like a gangster&quot;.</p>
<p>I don't have the references on hand, but I have learned from multiple documentaries, that street gangs collect and study the movies from the Godfather series to learn how to be &quot;proper&quot; gangsters</p>
<p><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068646/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068646/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1</a></p>
<p>There are many more examples:</p>
<p>The Columbine High School shooters dressed up like characters in the movie The Matrix, possibly in imitation of the - we have to rescue Morbius - scene.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0133093/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0133093/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1</a></p>
<p>I wish I had kept the references, but I have watched two other documentaries where European criminals, with records of confinement for crimes, reveal that they &quot;watch American movies&quot; to get ideas for &quot;better crimes&quot;.</p>
<p>Finally, Incorporation hides a multitude of sins:
It works this way:</p>
<ol>
<li>You look up how much the fine is</li>
<li>You determine that the profit outweighs the fine</li>
<li>If you get caught, the people who buy your products pay the fine. That is: a certain amount of the income received from doing business is set aside to pay the fines. You and your associates get away Scott-free. You keep your jobs, and salaries, and you are extremely unlikely to go to jail.</li>
</ol>
<p><a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/03/investing/elizabeth-warren-executives-jail-legislation/index.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/03/investing/elizabeth-warren-executives-jail-legislation/index.html</a></p>
<p>so there you have it...
&amp; etc.</p>
<p>The concept here is that humans are the only creatures on Earth that can learn from stories, and incorporate those stories into their behaviors.</p>
<p>So, the solution is:</p>
<p>Write out your crime as a drama, or action movie.
Give the main character a compelling reason to commit the crime
Then, sit back and let someone else do it for you.</p>
<p>...clean as a newborn's bottom! ...</p>

criminal-law