SD v nein 30660 2026 Crim 175

SD v nein_30660 [2026] Crim 175

Date of judgment	22nd February 2026
Judge	Judge Muggy
Charges	One count of Making a False Report (Article 22a of the Criminal Code 2020) One count of False Declaration of Alternate Accounts (Article 43 Subdivision 2 of the Criminal Code 2020) One count of Doxxing Hoax (Articles 55a and 13a of the Criminal Code 2020)
Verdict	Plead guilty to one count of Making a False Report Plead guilty to one count of False Declaration of Alternate Accounts Not guilty of Doxxing Hoax
Sentence	Banned for a total of 2 months and 15 days 1 month ban for Making a False Report 1 month, 15 day ban for False Declaration of Alternate Accounts
Applicable persuasive precedent	Judgment compiled, numbered, and formatted by Chief Archivist Benbookworm from multiple Discord messages from 3 January 2026 to 6 February 2026 Relies on the brevity of SD v Dick_head68 [2019] Crim 1 See the Discussion page for more information.

JUDGMENT by Judge Muggy

On Making a False Report and False Declaration of Alternate Accounts

Note from the Archives: The defendant plead guilty to one count of Making a False Report and one count of False Declaration of Alternate Accounts. The court accepted this plea and proceeded to sentencing.

[1] On the charge of Article 22a Making a False Report, I sentence the defendant to a 1 month ban from SimDemocracy and its territories.

[2] While I understand that the defendant may have been a confused newcomer in the beginning, the repeated use of the SDBI ping despite being told by several members of the community, in varying intensities, not to do so, shows a disregard for the law. Their apology on this matter is considered, but their explicit language in saying “THATHATS THE REASON WHY” in response to being told that their actions will land them in prison.

[3] On the charge of Article 43 Subdivision 2 False Declaration of Alternate Accounts, I sentence the defendant to a 1 month, 15 day ban from SimDemocracy and its territories.

[4] Neither the prosecution nor the defense really touched on factors for this charge, but given that the defense plead guilty, and the defendant apologized, the Court sees it fit to lower the sentence a bit. These actions taken by the defendant are also seemingly connected to the defendant wanting to commit a crime, and simply thinking that it’s useless anyways because you’re going to get banned is hardly a justification for committing more crime, so the Court doesn’t offer much leeway in terms of that.

[5] These sentences shall run concurrently due to their similar purpose in the defendant committing them and being committed in a similar timeframe.

[6] The Court’s reasoning on both of these sentences are to be expanded upon in the verdict at the end of trial.

Note from the Archives: The expanded verdict was never issued.

On Doxxing Hoax

[7] I will say that the prosecution has not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed doxxing hoax.

[8] My FULL reasoning will come at some point either today or sunday.

Note from the Archives: The expanded verdict was never issued.