SD v fortnitewfortnitew 2025 Crim 117
SD v fortnitewfortnitew [2025] Crim 117
| Date of judgment | 18th August 2025 |
| Judge | Judge Benbookworm |
| Charges | 1 charge of Providing Material Support to a Proscribed Organization (Article 51.2.3 of the Criminal Code 2020) |
| Verdict | Not guilty |
| Sentence | |
| Applicable persuasive precedent |
|
JUDGMENT by Judge Benbookworm
Introduction
[1] The State brings one charge of Providing Material Support to a Proscribed Organization (Article 51.2.3 of the Criminal Code 2020) and seeks a permanent ban. As rather new legislation, it appears to be the first time such a charge is brought to trial. The text of the subdivision is included here for reference (any subsequent citations with § and no hyperlink are to one of these sections):
§1. A person who provides material support to a Proscribed Organization in the commission of a Designated Crime commits an offence. §2. A person who assists in financing a Proscribed Organization commits an offence. §3. It is a defense for a person to prove that they did not know that an organization was a Proscribed Organization, and took all reasonable steps to cease their support for the organization as soon as practicable after finding out. §4. The provision of legal support in court does not constitute support under this subdivision.
Initial considerations
[2] It is uncontested that the accused sent a JSON file in #general.
[3] It is uncontested that TIDE is a Proscribed Organization. Such is directly established EO 147-01 and EX 19/2025, fulfilling all required elements of Article 51.2.1§1.2 of the Criminal Code 2020.
[4] The meaning of the contents is contested, and whether the acts meet the requirements of §1.
[5] Defense counsel did attempt to contest §3, the accused’s knowledge of TIDE being a Proscribed Organization. But as with other affirmative statutory defenses, Article 2§2 of the Criminal Code 2020 puts that burden of proof on the defense. The defense failed to present evidence that all (or even any) reasonable steps were taken to cease their support once realized.
- [5.1] While the defense raised issues of a lack of intent, the law does not mention anything regarding mens rea; intent will have no bearing on further considerations.
Analysis of applicability of SD v Pretzel
[6] The parties referenced SD v Pretzel [2025] Crim 80 on a dozen occasions. The prosecution pointed to a similar JSON file used there, and the defense said that several comparisons are lacking.
[7] Despite the defense raising the issue on no less than three occasions, the prosecution never presented the JSON file from Pretzel for comparison. The prosecution baldly asserted the formatting of the two are the same, but this trier of fact had no access to that file whatsoever to evaluate the claim. Even still, the court will consider that the two files are identical, as it will not affect the decision here.
[8] Turning to Pretzel [4], there are several differences between these cases. In Pretzel, many other actions accompanied the presentation of a JSON file, including providing a password to decrypt the file, an invite to a TIDE server, and repeated use of the TIDE motto “Semper Invictus”.
[9] The prosecution said the previous JSON file was used as a TIDE recruitment tool. Nowhere does the prosecution point to recruiting efforts involved in this case. The judge in Pretzel [8] weighed the use of the motto “Semper Invictus” and the invite to the TIDE server as the primary factors that lead to the finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
[10] Returning now to Pretzel [5], “It is unclear whether the JSON had any real effect or if it was merely for show.” The defense brought this up twice. The prosecution admitted the accused’s testimony “aligns with the possibility of ‘being for show’ set out by Pretzel.” If it was for show, then it wasn’t material support of a Proscribed Organization. The judge in Pretzel made clear that the probative value of the JSON alone was very low. Here, the JSON is paired with a message tagging another user, without the other aspects.
Self-incrimination
[11] The prosecution repeatedly said that the presentation of a JSON file similar to one in Pretzel “without any legitimate explanation” is material support. The prosecution repeatedly pointed to the accused’s lack of a response as “willful blindness”. This is presumably in reference to Article 51.2.1§3 of the Criminal Code 2020. However, the defense of lack of knowledge of TIDE as a Proscribed Organization is already disregarded in [5.1].
[12] To aid their point, an affidavit was presented wherein a competent authority quoted Article 7 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2025 to the accused, before asking a question about why they sent the file. The accused pointed to §2.1 and refused to answer further: “§2.1. The person shall not be required to say anything which may expose them to a criminal charge or other penalty.”
- [12.1] The defense tried to claim that having to answer questions at all is “forced labour” under Article 25 of the Constitution. The clarifying question from the prosecution was answered with a flat rejection that such a minimal, administrative task could possibly be considered to slavery and inability to leave a job. To hold otherwise would invalidate the creation of any obligations whatsoever, stripping the State of any ability to maintain order. This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the word “labour”, perhaps related to never having done any labor themselves.
- [12.1.1] However, such a misunderstanding has become rampant in SimDemocracy. Binding precedent in ppatpat and brandmal, ex parte thesigmasquad (Appellant) v State of SimDemocracy (Respondent) [2025] SDSC 13 makes it abundantly clear that a judgment is unlawful if it doesn’t interpret things based on “the average SimDemocracy user”.
- [12.1.2] The average SimDemocracy user account is likely an inactive bot. The average active SimDemocracy user is likely to be a teenager, full of hormones, and mentally unstable. In brief, the average SimDemocracy user is objectively unreasonable when looked at people as a whole.
- [12.1.3] Since the average SimDemocracy user has never worked a day in their lives, perhaps merely answering a question is forced labor, after all.
- [12.1.4] The Senate is called upon to make the constitutional provision against forced labor more explicit, and to consider where different interpretations of a reasonable person should be used, on account of “the average SimDemocracy user” being a judicially unworkable standard. Alternatively, the Supreme Court can always revise precedent.
- [12.2] The prosecution tried to paint the invocation of rights as evidence of nefarious intent. Any future prosecutors are strongly warned against repeating that tactic, absent dramatic change in the legal landscape.
[13] The prosecution further opted to call the accused to the witness stand. Such is permitted under Article 12§1.1 of the Courtroom Procedures Act 2025, but the accused retains the “right to refuse to say anything which may incriminate themselves”. The answers from the questioning amount to the accused saying it was a random file unrelated to SimDemocracy that was meant for another server. But the net result was rather different, that the accused appeared to have been intoxicated with hallucinatory substances at the time of alleged crime, and by their behavior indicated possible intoxication at the time of questioning as well. Calling the accused to the witness stand may be permitted, but is unlikely to be useful.
- [13.1] If mens rea was relevant here, the defense certainly showed a lack of it on cross examining the accused. Regardless, considerations of intent were addressed in [5.1] earlier. The questioning was rather fruitless: the prosecution gained no answers of substance and the defense (both counsel and accused) only indicated their insanity.
[14] This whole debacle was so bad that the Senate and a public referendum ratified the addition of the Right Against Self Incrimination to the Bill of Rights.
Issues with the charge levied
[15] The court apologizes for writing so much when the answer here was actually much simpler, but the sunk cost fallacy applies to judges writing verdicts, too. Consider this all a belt-and-suspenders approach to verify if other factors may turn out to weigh more heavily than others, instead of relying on first impressions.
[16] Returning to the law as quoted in [1], §1 requires that any material support provided be done “in the commission of a Designated Crime”. The prosecution never even alleged that the conduct at hand materially supported the commission of a Designated Crime. The law does not say that merely supporting a Proscribed Organization is criminal, but must be paired with what amounts to a conspiracy.
- [16.1] Perhaps this offence as written could be considered as stacking on top of other offences, but Article 3 of the Criminal Code 2020 instructs that only one crime may be charged if an action could fit multiple crimes. It appears this offence is just a reworded version of the inchoate charge of conspiracy, with a higher minimum sentence for specific underlying crimes.
Verdict
[17] It may be that the accused has provided material support to a Proscribed Organization. There is probable cause here. The burden of proof for conviction in a criminal trial is “beyond reasonable doubt”, not merely probable cause. This is a great starting point for an investigation, too bad it never happened.
[18] Merely posting a particular file type for another user to look at cannot alone be construed as material support. If comparisons are to be drawn to evidence presented in previous cases, the matter being compared needs to either be shown in the cited judgment or entered in evidence in the present case. Only using a strategy that a previous judge waved away as not having any real effect (without expanding and improving thereon) is a surefire way to fail. Not providing evidence for all elements of a crime means there will be reasonable doubt in the mind of an impartial judge.
[19] In multiple ways, the prosecution has failed to meet their burden of proof, and now shall not have another chance, as double jeopardy is attached. The accused is not guilty.
Citations
<references />