UK - How likely is it to be caught buying Research Chemicals?

[T.K]

SWIM has found a reliable site which will sell him 2C-E, a substance SWIM has been interested in for quite some time. SWIM lives in the UK and his possible vendor is based somewhere in the EU(country undisclosed). The method of payment SWIM will be using is paypal(SWIM was apprehensive about using paypal due to their notorious reputation for handing info over to the police in these situations). The vendor has set up a seperate account just for SWIM's transaction as SWIM expressed unese about using paypal through the online shop as usual. SWIM asked me to ask you guys if it is likely that when(these things dont last forever) the supplier gets busted or paypal is informed of the vendors "antics", will SWIM's info be found out by the police and will swim get raided even though he has used an account other than the vendors usual shop account? Can the police extract information of the transaction from the vendors computer if he gets raided?

Thanks alot guys, SWIM and I appreciate the help.




PS: If I have posted this in the wrong forum etc. please take appropriate action!

[Psych0naut]

It's a very small chance, but there has been an international raid called project webtryp a few years ago, where several RC vendors where busted and their customer information was passed on to the law enforcement of several countries, among which was the UK. It's a very low risk, but still one to be conscious of.

[FuBai]

So long as you use the RCs immediately upon delivery then there is no case to mount. It is only illegal to be found in possession of these substances, not to have bought them in the past. If you use the RCs instantly and handle them in such a way as to leave no residue (wear disposable rubber gloves, if you need to weigh it then place a piece of paper on the scales so that no residue is left directly in the scales, be careful when handling powders so that as little as possible is lost, clean all surfaces thoroughly after contact even with the packaging. Dispose of the rubber gloves, paper and cleaning cloth after use etc) then you can simply say that what you were sold was not 2C-E and you were ripped off. This way there is no chance at all of a case being mounted.

Reputation Comments on this post:

	Good advice
	excellent info and details
	Brilliant information on covering up your tracks
	This is very good advice that I'll remember if ever applicable again..

[lulz]

The use of paypal would make SWIM avoid any transactions with the supplier, considering the variety of alternatives. Especially since SWIY is talking about transactions within the EU, which would make Western Union at least a more likely option to use since transaction costs would be low. Perhaps the supplier is a noob at the game and hasn't figured out how to use WU without presenting genuine identification.

Healthy paranoia is always a good rule of thumb when buying online. Sounds like this supplier could possibly be a law enforcement officer, or a noob who hasn't learned the ins and outs of the game yet. Either possibility is a bad thing. Depends on what level of paranoia SWIY finds healthy. In this game, just because you're paranoid definitely doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

[bjarkii]

Originally Posted by lulz

Sounds like this supplier could possibly be a law enforcement officer

is this legal? wouldnt it technically count as entrapment?

[lulz]

Originally Posted by bjarkii

is this legal? wouldnt it technically count as entrapment?

Entrapment is a greatly misunderstood concept, favoring law enforcement officers.

Entrapment means that no crime would have been committed without the intervention of a government official, usually requiring the presence of coercion.

For example: if you were sitting in a bar, quietly minding your own business, and a stranger (undercover police officer) came over to you and said "you need to kill someone for me, or I'll kill you". If you actually did kill the person, in court you could argue a defense of entrapment, because you never would have committed the crime otherwise.

On the other hand if you went up to a stranger in a bar (who turned out to be an undercover cop) and asked him to kill someone for you, trying to plead a defense of entrapment in court would be shot down in seconds.

The idea that if you ask an undercover cop "are you a cop" and they have to say yes, otherwise it's entrapment, only applies to Hollywood movies.

If you initiate an illegal act of your own free will, it doesn't matter whether the other person admits to being a cop or not. They can pretend all they like. In court you can call it "entrapment", and they will call it "gathering evidence". Guess which one of you the law favors?

[chrisn]

What exactly can an undercover cop do if you try to buy drugs off of them (online or in real life, and is there a difference?)? I can't imagine it wouldn't fall under entrapment if they were to supply you the drug, then arrest you for possession.

[lulz]

Originally Posted by chrisn

I can't imagine it wouldn't fall under entrapment if they were to supply you the drug, then arrest you for possession.

That's a popular delusion that probably results in a lot of arrests which wouldn't happen otherwise. If only we lived in a world where the justice system left people alone when they weren't harming other people, and let everyone else get on with their own business?

The specifics of the law depend largely on where you live, but from what I've researched there are large overlaps.

Here is an example of a commentary on British law, which unfortunately (for a number of reasons) tends to apply here in Ireland too:

[Not a defence in UK case law] [The jurisdiction to stay proceedings] [The Section 78 discretion]


Entrapment occurs when an agent of the state - usually a law enforcement officer or a controlled informer - causes someone to commit an offence so that the latter should be prosecuted.

Entrapment is not a substantive defence in the sense of providing a ground upon which the accused is entitled to an acquittal. That is, you cannot use it as a get-out-free card defence.

The court has jurisdiction in a case of entrapment to stay the prosecution on the ground that the integrity of the criminal justice system would be compromised by allowing the state to punish someone whom the state itself has caused to transgress.

Although the court has a discretion under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to exclude evidence on the ground that its admission would have an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings, the exclusion of evidence is not an appropriate response to entrapment. The question is not whether the proceedings would be a fair determination of guilt but whether they should have been brought at all.
(a) Not a defence in British case law

The fact that the accused was entrapped is not inconsistent with their having broken the law. The entrapment will usually have achieved its object in causing the prohibited act with the necessary guilty intent.

http://www.freebeagles.org/articles/entrapment.html

Quite definitely, the common misconception over "entrapment" comes from people relying on TV shows and movies as their basis of fact.

Unfortunately it doesn't work that way legally. If you are found guilty of willfully committing an illegal act, it doesn't matter whether or not the undercover police admit to being police, or satisfy your request to supply you with an illegal substance.

Don't take my word for it, research the relevant legislation that applies to your own country. But chances are, unless there is some Western fantasy land country I have not yet heard of, as long as SWIY is the one who asks an undercover policeman to engage in an illegal act, entrapment is a hopeless legal defence.

Entrapment is often portrayed in TV and film as if "were an undercover policeman to engage in an illegal activity, without informing the suspect that they are undercover policemen, then any evidence those policemen submit in court is inadmissable". Unfortunately, this preys on the naivety and wishful thinking of people who are engaging in illegal activity, whatever that nature may be.

Aside from personal research on the internet, I have it on good authority (having discussed this with a very liberal lawyer who happens to be a friend of the family), that the public perception of entrapment is very, very different to how the cards fall in a court of law. Coercion has to be proven for entrapment to be a valid defense.

Again, research the laws relevant to your area. And if possible, speak to a lawyer who is familiar with the laws pertaining to your country.

Reputation Comments on this post:

	Good info.
	Good and informative post (as per usual).
	useful info, thanks
	Thank you for providing this legal information and dispelling common misconceptions regarding the law.

[JDreaming]

What Lulz says about entrapment is accurate, but very unlikely to come into play. I haven't seen any evidence that even one chemical website is actually a law enforcement sting operation, arresting people who place orders. It could happen, but so far it just doesn't. There are real vendors, and there are scams.

Asking the vendor if they would be willing to accept a Western Union/Moneygram payment, or something else more secure than PayPal, might be a wise precaution, though.

[T.K]

SWIM has decided against buying RC's from this vendor because even though he has proof from others that it is legit, someone said they heard it was run by the Belgian government for something to do with narcotics and immigration(I know they arn't linked at all but this is what I heard from one person who said they heard it from someone at interpol. Farfetched I know but unnessicary risks are pointless).]
Thanks for the info guys, SWIM and I are very impressed at your knowledge. Useful information on entrapment Lulz, thanks.

[Bikelbees]

The cases which are successfully prosecuted in UK are principally cases where the undercover police ask to be supplied drugs, then its a bust. Its suppliers they want over users and perhaps the entrapment balance vests on this distinction, but with the police anything is possible. Ive never heard of them supplying drugs and then busting people in the same way that they DO use female vice officers to bust Johns, but I guess its possible. If they did they would be breaking the drugs law themselves anyway (unless it was fake and they went for intention to supply).

[FuBai]

Am I right in saying that, in the USA, it is a crime (perhaps only in some states) to intend to buy drugs? Luckily I'm reasonably sure that's not the case in the UK, and, if you are offered drugs that are fake, even if you accept and pay for them they can't bust you because the crime is only for possession, whereas in America these set-ups work.

[EyesOfTheWorld]

SWIM knows (from watching TV, actually) that a common pig practice is to sell drugs to someone and then immediately bust them for possession. Why, you ask? Usually the buyers in these ghetto (note: these stings always happen in the hood) situations are white and generally better-off than the minority dealers in the ghetto, so the pigs can seize their (usually valuable) car and any money they have on them as it was "used in a drug crime" This is lazy police work focused on earning money, not on punishing criminals or protecting citizens, but it happens all the time. SWIM imagines the same could apply to an RC online setup, but he doesn't know how well a sting operation set up in another country would hold up in court (note, SWIM is working with his knowledege of US law, not UK, but they tend to be similar), seems that far more likely SWIY is risking having someone take his money and run, knowing SWIY can't complain to the police.

[Will21st]

Originally Posted by FuBai

Am I right in saying that, in the USA, it is a crime (perhaps only in some states) to intend to buy drugs? Luckily I'm reasonably sure that's not the case in the UK, and, if you are offered drugs that are fake, even if you accept and pay for them they can't bust you because the crime is only for possession, whereas in America these set-ups work.

The attempt to buy drugs is a criminal offense in Germany as well.The big difference I believe between the UK/US is the fact that consuming drugs is legal in the UK/Ger,but not in the US.Is this correct?

[Pondlife]

I am no way affiliated with such dealings and feel that ordering illegal substances online is morally reprehensible.

There are some RCs that are legal in the UK. Certainly not many: most of the phenethylamines and tryptamines are illegal for example, but still some.

There have been arrests in the UK for ordering RCs. Google "operation ismene".

Originally Posted by Will21st

The attempt to buy drugs is a criminal offense in Germany as well.The big difference I believe between the UK/US is the fact that consuming drugs is legal in the UK/Ger,but not in the US.Is this correct?

Consumption of drugs is not an offence in the UK. It doesn't count as possession and it's not an offence in itself.

[nate81]

I'm not sure what drug stings have to do with RC venors. Seems like a pretty different situation. SWIM told me that he used to order from the sites associated with the Webtryp bust. His orders were as young as a couple months when the bust happened and he never heard about it. Then again, he was small potatoes, too small for anyone to care.

SWIM feels that if one is very careful in choosing their vendor, and does not purchase multiple grams at a time, then safety isn't a big deal. However, this assumes that the RC's being ordered are not specifically illegal where SWIY lives. If SWIM ordered half a gram of 2C-B he would probably get a hemrhoid from butt puckering. SWIM would feel absolutely certain of his demise because he always assumes that sort of a thing would be watched.

So, order small, know SWIY vendor well, don't order anything known to be illegal.

[PuKeTaG]

Make sure you do your research first before ordering, most vendors know what they are doing is illegal and therefore will take appropriate steps with packagins etc to bypass certain custom officials. If one isn't willing to take the risk, then simply don't bother ordering.

It is quite unlikely you will get caught, you are more likely to get scammed but that is an inherent risk in these dealings.

I am no way affiliated with such dealings and feel that ordering illegal substances online is morally reprehensible.

[PuKeTaG]

I read about operation ismene, they are typically sketchy on the details, but surely after seeing amounts being ordered they would have gone for the big reshippers.

It just makes me angry when the whole cause of this is one moron who doesn't respect and research what he puts into his body.

I just read this from another forum about this company

"The company also spent more than $10,000 advertising its wares on Google, a mainstream Internet search site."

ok now I am starting to get it...oh did you know google was a mainstrean internet search engine? Just google it!

[Doe222]

i heard somewhere that you can be arrested for possession even if you have already consumed your drugs because the police claim that its still "on your person". is this true?

[jaffacake]

The problem is if the vendor gets raided then the police will have your address details. Those details will be passed to the UK police who, as operation ismene proved, will be dead keen on kicking your door down. It doesn't matter if you only ordered 10mg of 2CE 18 months ago - your door will be kicked down.

If you have nothing in the house when they raid it then you will just recieve a caution for ordering the drug.

It's an unpleasant thing to have hanging over your head, you don't know when the vendor is going to be raided so you don't know when you are going to be raided.

jaffacake added 1 Minutes and 21 Seconds later...

Originally Posted by PuKeTaG

I read about operation ismene, they are typically sketchy on the details, but surely after seeing amounts being ordered they would have gone for the big reshippers.

No, the UK police went after everyone regardless of the size of the order - even if they only made one 10mg order 12 months earlier.

[porchy]

Originally Posted by jaffacake

The problem is if the vendor gets raided then the police will have your address details. Those details will be passed to the UK police who, as operation ismene proved, will be dead keen on kicking your door down. It doesn't matter if you only ordered 10mg of 2CE 18 months ago - your door will be kicked down.

If you have nothing in the house when they raid it then you will just recieve a caution for ordering the drug.

It's an unpleasant thing to have hanging over your head, you don't know when the vendor is going to be raided so you don't know when you are going to be raided.

jaffacake added 1 Minutes and 21 Seconds later...



No, the UK police went after everyone regardless of the size of the order - even if they only made one 10mg order 12 months earlier.

And that is even if the chemical is legal?

[Evil GIR]

Originally Posted by jaffacake

The problem is if the vendor gets raided then the police will have your address details. Those details will be passed to the UK police who, as operation ismene proved, will be dead keen on kicking your door down. It doesn't matter if you only ordered 10mg of 2CE 18 months ago - your door will be kicked down.

If you have nothing in the house when they raid it then you will just recieve a caution for ordering the drug.

It's an unpleasant thing to have hanging over your head, you don't know when the vendor is going to be raided so you don't know when you are going to be raided.

jaffacake added 1 Minutes and 21 Seconds later...



No, the UK police went after everyone regardless of the size of the order - even if they only made one 10mg order 12 months earlier.

Is this True ?
Swim ordered from a company about 2 months before the busts.
Swim moved house twice within 9 months and then orded cacti.
His orders arrived fine at the 1st new addy, but at the second new addy there was a bust. They where looking for drugs and money, I wonder if they where related. ?

As custome had opened cacti packages before and let them through, this time though they didnt.
I always found the so called bust weird.

[jaffacake]

SWIM made one order 12 months before the busts and got a visit.

I think most of the busts came from people who ordered from the american research place, think his name was michael something.

jaffacake added 7 Minutes and 38 Seconds later...

Originally Posted by porchy

And that is even if the chemical is legal?

No, that's for illegal ones like 2c-e.

If it was methylone I don't think they'd break the door down.

[Junkhead23]

Originally Posted by Doe222

i heard somewhere that you can be arrested for possession even if you have already consumed your drugs because the police claim that its still "on your person". is this true?

This happened to a friend of pacmans not so long ago. As there was a used pin near his bed the officer said that he still had the drug in his system and did him for possession. No word of a lie

[Will21st]

Originally Posted by Junkhead23

This happened to a friend of pacmans not so long ago. As there was a used pin near his bed the officer said that he still had the drug in his system and did him for possession. No word of a lie

Nonsense....

Drug consumption is legal in the UK.