On the acquisition of legal rights to sanctioned YouTubers&#39; frozen funds
<p><sup><strong>Note:</strong> The following is a thought experiment. Since I am no legal scholar, it is highly likely that its wording needs a lot of improvement. Suggestions for improvement would be most welcome.</sup></p>
<hr />
<p>Suppose that the Government of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syldavia" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Syldavia</a> has upset the US Government. Suppose further that the latter retaliates with crippling sanctions.  As a consequence, Syldavian YouTubers, whose main source of income is now frozen due to the aforementioned sanctions, are at risk of destitution.</p>
<p>Suppose that a few amoral investors start a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulture_fund" rel="nofollow noreferrer">vulture fund</a> to exploit Syldavian YouTubers' predicament. This fund would acquire the legal rights to willing Syldavian YouTubers's frozen funds at a <em>very</em> generous discount, then kindly request that YouTube unfreeze the aforementioned funds.</p>
<ul>
<li>Which clauses of YouTube's <em>Terms of Service</em> would be violated?</li>
<li>Which US sanctions would be violated?</li>
</ul>

<h2>There is no law against driving a hard bargain</h2>
<p>If you were describing real estate owners rather than YouTube channel owners we’d have a term for them: a <a href="https://www.millionacres.com/real-estate-basics/real-estate-terms/what-are-motivated-sellers-and-how-do-i-find-them/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">motivated seller</a>.  There is no law against using the fact that someone is desperate to sell to negotiate a lower price: that’s just good business.</p>
<p>In general, common law legal systems do not involve themselves in whether a price agreed between two parties was fair: if you want to sell your original Picasso for $1 or pay $1m for a used tissue, that’s up to you. If you have ethical issues with that, don’t do it but it’s not illegal.</p>
<p>Legal issues can come up where you are the cause in some way of the motivation. A lender foreclosing on a mortgage is ok. A lender offering to buy the property to avoid foreclosure is not. The first is just enforcing the terms of the contract, the second looks like undue influence and unconscionable conduct.</p>
<p>Some countries have laws against profiteering and you would need to look at the legal definition to decide if this is or isn’t profiteering. In the US, it isn’t because their laws only deal with profiteering that damages the government. Some US states have laws against <a href="https://www.findlaw.com/consumer/consumer-transactions/price-gouging-laws-by-state.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">price gouging</a> but these are usually to prevent charging too much, not too little.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Which clauses of YouTube's Terms of Service would be violated?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>None. YouTube does not have any terms about selling your digital assets and we know it <a href="https://outofthe925.com/can-you-sell-a-youtube-channel/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">happens</a>.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Which US sanctions would be violated?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It’s impossible to say without reading the sanction. If it’s illegal to transfer money to the sanctioned people then the whole plan falls over because you can’t pay for the channel in the first place.</p>

finance is-x-legal youtube sanctions reference-request