How does this resolve as NO? or this a forever market essentially?

What if he is found guilty but then is proven innocent later?

@Bebop "Regarding his current charges and the outcome of his arrest."

I think if he was found not guilty or guilty of current charges the market should be closed.

If the charges are withdrawn it should probably be a No, but I can see an argument for NA.

@StephenBuggy "found guilty" is explicit. If charges are withdrawn then he was not found guilty, the bet doesn't stipulate specifically being found guilty through the course of a trial

While I think Tate is a creep, whatever this is looks political. But Trump already won, so he'll likely walk away. If I'm wrong, then it's because I didn't care enough to actually check any of the details.

@AlexanderKlos He is not in the United States

@SaiVazquez please don't talk about details like this! 😃

@SaiVazquez Neither was Julian Assange, smarty pants. Tate (somehow) became a political figure online who was a threat to some US interests, and countries allied to the US will absolutely drag people through the mud on their behalf.

The statement says "regarding his current charges" so I would assume this won't be open for another 5 years?

deleted

Is there suddenly some hint that there might have been non-human (sex) trafficking?

By the wording of this market I'm assuming we're looking at both the Romanian case and the possible extradition to the UK, correct?

https://x.com/adervid2804/status/1833250583903338672

@dgga unable to see that page

Does this market have a resolution date or does it go on until he is found guilty or he is aquited

@AndrewCrosse the description says "current charges" which would apply to laid charges at the time the poll was created, this might have been abandoned by the creator though

If "realizing you're 100% going to jail" was a facial expression

Tate wiretaps released to the media: https://m.digi24.ro/stiri/actualitate/interceptari-in-dosarul-fratilor-tate-despre-femeile-care-faceau-videochat-tristan-recunoaste-ca-este-proxenet-maine-strangem-mieii-2904095

(Google translate)

What do you make of that?

https://apnews.com/article/andrew-tate-human-trafficking-child-de5e9a2de2f112f141513b2b1e4641d3?taid=66c59e95103e400001efb6e8&utm_campaign=TrueAnthem&utm_medium=AP&utm_source=Twitter

Be careful what you wish for! The Tates asked for a country with a weak and corrupt legal system, and that’s exactly what they got.

This is weird guys, why are we asking about it?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68907298.amp

TBC he isn't even accused of sex trafficking and this market ought probably be <10%.

Thank you so much for the insight. The fact that Romania doesn't literally call it sex trafficking is such a brilliant point that definitely hasn't been covered before.

It's not that they don't call it sex trafficking it's that it's not sex trafficking. Maybe it's been discussed somewhere but i didn't notice it when I skimmed the comments, and I didn't get any response when I pointed it out ~10 months ago.

For what purpose to you think he is being accused of trafficking people for? Berry-picking? Office work?

Which part of
"The "exploitation purposes" prerequisite needs to (more or less) be ruled to relate to the sex work that the trafficked persons performed or were intended to perform."
in the question is unclear? If he is ruled to be guilty of human trafficking, and the court says that he did/intended to force the victims to do sex work, this resolves YES. There's some room for interpretation of the court's decision, but all is reasonably clear to me.

Yeah, what @AIBear said. AFAIK he's accused of trafficking people to work under illegal work conditions in areas unrelated to sex, so question would resolve NO based on that.

@jim this is a translated transcipt of a hearing back in Jan 2023

tate's lawyer is speaking here:

Regarding the material of the charges against the defendants, speaking of the crime of

human trafficking, the prosecutor considers, as well as the modalities. of committing this crime, from the multiple offered by the incrimination norm, first of all recruiting the respective persons by misleading, by exercising acts of mental and physical violence, harboring and transporting the respective persons for the purpose of sexual exploitation, forcing them to carry out pornographic materials and being subjected to forced labor.

of course, I could just be mistaken, but what I read was from months after that so it's possible that charges were dropped