While it doesn't happen as often as we like, sometimes the scammers at the top of the pyramid are caught. But the simple fact is, crimes that cross international borders are often very complicated.
As to the rest, though? Frankly, you sound like a 5 year old child who got in trouble, but tries to claim that you shouldn't be punished because your it was your friend's idea. Chances are your parents didn't buy that childish ploy any more than the authorities will buy it. You made your own choice, and whether your friend was punished or not, you are still responsible for your own actions, even if your friend was the ringleader. If you commit a crime and there is sufficient evidence against you to prove it, you can
and should be charged for that crime, regardless of what someone else may have done. If you knowingly committed that crime intending to hide behind such an idiotic excuse, then frankly you should get the maximum possible sentence. The fact that there are other criminals involved does not mean you can evade responsibility for your own actions.
If someone is prosecuted wouldn't that violate a persons constitutional rights to be able to confront their accuser in a court of law?
This makes no sense. The missing co-conspirators are not the accusers. If a person is laundering money, his accuser is going to be (a) the government; (b) the bank or financial institution defrauded; or (c) (less likely) the victim whose money he/she has stolen. The person being prosecuted does in fact face his/her accusers.
Since the scammer would create the circumstances by being mastermind of the offense causing a person to be accused and prosecuted for his crime.
If Ieave my keys on the front seat of my car, and John Doe sees those keys and uses them to steal my car, am I responsible for his crime? Absolutely not. My actions may have made his crime possible, but John knew the car did not belong to him, and he took it anyway. His actions, and only his actions caused him to be accused of the crime. In the same way, the scammer may dangle an opportunity to get good money for little work in front of an individual, but the individual chose to ignore the warning signs (and the terms of his/her bank account, which he/she accepted by opening the account) and proceed.
In reality, the police will rarely pursue charges against an individual who only did it once and was clearly convinced he/she was doing legitimate work. If charges are filed, it is generally after the individual shows a history of
repeatedly breaking the law, or evidence shows that he/she was warned or recognized that the situation wasn't right, but then went ahead anyway.
How can the law justify making a person they know to take complete punishment when the mastermind continue to suck in more people who will take responsibility for his crime.
The mule is not taking anywhere near complete punishment. He or she will not be prosecuted for the scammer's crime--unless authorities can prove he/she was a knowing accomplice (like Tracy Vasseur, a victim-turned-accomplice who continued despite our warnings and warnings from law enforcement) the mule will only be held accountable for his/her own part of the crime. So the mastermind could have stolen millions of dollars, but the mule will typically only be charged for the hundred thousand he/she laundered. It's a BIG difference.
We support victims and will do everything in our power to help them to get them away from scammers. But anyone who makes a decision to cross the line and become a criminal him/herself is NOT going to get any sympathy here, no matter how he/she attempts to justify his/her actions.
