Criminal Code of 2025

[Mangegneithe]

SECTION I. GENERAL PROVISIONS

…1.1. This Act shall be known and cited as the “Criminal Code of 2025.”

…1.2. Indictable offenses shall be defined as a violation of this code which shall be prosecuted by the Praesidium and tried by the Conclave to determine guilt and sentencing. Sentencing shall be carried out by the Praesidium, or the Delegate under Praesidium orders.

…1.3. Summary offenses shall be defined as any violation of this code which shall be met with immediate action by the Praesidium. The Praesidium may only act according to the provisions of this law. All summary sentences may be appealed to the Conclave.

…1.4. Ineligibility to hold public office is an optional additional or alternative sentencing to banishment imposed by the Conclave, with time limits between four months to five years. It shall only apply to select offices and the offices must be related in some way to the crime committed.

…1.5. Nothing in this act prohibits an individual standing on trial for more than one crime. In cases such as these, sentences shall be cumulative with no limit.

…1.6. Upon the passage of this Act, the following are repealed: The Treason Act, Sections VI and VII of the Delegate Elections Act, Section VII of the Citizenship Act, Clause 3.3 of the Awards Act, Section V of the Public Official Disclosure Act, and Section IV of the Punishment Justification Act. Upon the enaction of this clause in the forums, this clause shall be removed by the Provost as a discretionary edit as a grammatical and logical redundancy with no further effect.

SECTION II. HIGH CRIMES

…2.1. The category of “High Crimes” shall refer to the following illegal acts: High Treason, Treason, Sedition, Espionage, and Invasion.

…2.2. High Treason shall be defined as any act to depose or support deposing the lawfully elected Delegate or legitimate government of The East Pacific outside of legal checks and balances for maintaining accountability.

…2.2.1. High Treason shall be both an indictable and summary offense.

…2.2.2. The summary sentence for High Treason shall be banishment up until the conclusion of a trial of the Conclave.

…2.2.3. The indictable sentence for High Treason shall be anywhere between five years of banishment and permanent banishment and ineligibility to hold public office.

…2.3. Treason shall be defined as any act to destabilize or assist in the destabilization of the legitimate government of The East Pacific through conspiracy to commit High Treason or sabotage of the democratic process of The East Pacific, including through a violation of the Concordat in one’s capacity as a public official.

…2.3.1. Treason shall be an indictable offense.

…2.3.2. The sentence for Treason shall be anywhere between one year to five years of banishment and/or ineligibility to hold public office.

…2.4. Sedition shall be defined as any act which incites crime through conspiracy or propaganda against the legitimate government of The East Pacific.

…2.4.1. Sedition shall be an indictable offense.

…2.4.2. The sentence for Sedition shall be anywhere between four months to two years of banishment and/or ineligibility to hold public office.

…2.5. Espionage shall be defined as any act to acquire and/or distribute private information to any individual without access to those communications, without the approval of the relevant government authority, or any act to acquire and/or distribute private information which may jeopardize the diplomacy or security of The East Pacific to any individual without such access.

…2.5.1. Espionage shall be an indictable offense.

…2.5.2. The sentence for Espionage shall be anywhere between four months to five years of banishment and/or ineligibility to hold public office.

…2.6. Invasion shall be defined as any act wherein a foreign nation moves to The East Pacific and strategically endorses a member of the region or another moving nation to instigate an attack on the integrity of the Delegacy.

…2.6.1. Invasion shall be a summary offense.

…2.6.2. The sentence for Invasion shall be immediate and indefinite banishment.

SECTION III. ELECTORAL CRIMES

…3.1. The category of “Electoral Crimes” shall refer to the following illegal acts: Voter Suppression, Voter Importation, Voter Manipulation, and Voter Fraud.

…3.2. Voter Suppression shall be defined as any act which attempts to prevent a Citizen from voting in a referendum or election, including by convincing them not to vote.

…3.2.1. Voter Suppression shall be an indictable offense.

…3.2.2. The sentence for Voter Suppression shall be between four months to a year of banishment and/or ineligibility to hold public office

…3.3. Voter Importation shall be defined as any act which organizes efforts to acquire citizenship solely to vote for a particular candidate in a particular election.

…3.3.1. Voter Importation shall be an indictable offense.

…3.3.2. The sentence for Voter Importation shall be between four months to five years of banishment and/or ineligibility to hold public office.

…3.4. Voter Manipulation shall be defined as any act by an electoral candidate to win votes through unofficial channels, including promises of office or other favors upon election.

…3.4.1. Voter Manipulation shall be an indictable offense.

…3.4.2. The sentence for Voter Manipulation shall be between a year to five years of banishment and/or ineligibility to hold public office. including promises of office or other favors upon election

…3.5. Voter Fraud shall be defined as any act which seeks or results in the registration of multiple citizenships for a single person.

…3.5.1. Voter Fraud shall be both an indictable and summary offense.

…3.5.2. The summary sentence for Voter Fraud shall be immediate forfeiture of any and all citizenships associated with the accused until the conclusion of a trial of the Conclave.

…3.5.3. The indictable sentence for Voter Fraud shall be between a year to five years of banishment.

SECTION IV. PROCEDURAL CRIMES

…4.1. The category of “Procedural Crimes” shall refer to the following illegal acts: Public Disclosure Fraud, Dereliction of Duty, Failure to Justify Punishment, and Abuse of Power.

…4.2. Public Disclosure Fraud shall be defined as any act by which a Public Disclosure Form or any provision thereof is falsified, concealed, or uncompleted.

…4.2.1. Public Disclosure Fraud shall be both an indictable and summary offense.

…4.2.2. The summary sentence for Public Disclosure Fraud shall be forfeiture of any public office which requires a Public Disclosure Form by law.

…4.2.3. The indictable sentence for Public Disclosure Fraud shall be between four months to five years of banishment and/or ineligibility to hold public office.

…4.3. Dereliction of Duty shall be defined as any act which impedes the faithful execution of the Concordat, Statutes, and Standing Orders of The East Pacific as they apply to one’s duties, including inactivity without a Leave of Absence filed with their prevailing superior beyond a period of a week.

…4.3.1. Dereliction of Duty shall be a summary offense.

…4.3.2. The sentence for Dereliction of Duty shall be forfeiture of all public office, upon which the Praesidium may fulfill essential duties until a replacement is found or unless procedures are put in place for interim appointments.

…4.4. Failure to Justify Punishment shall be defined as any act which conceals the reasons and lawful authority by which a Regional Officer ejected and/or banished a nation from The East Pacific, excluding actions which are sanctioned by Administrative authority as defined by Article F of the Concordat.

…4.4.1. Failure to Justify Punishment shall be an indictable offense.

…4.4.2. The sentence for Failure to Justify Punishment shall be ineligibility to hold public office.

…4.5. Abuse of Power shall be defined as any act which uses the official powers of public office to benefit oneself or grant favors to another individual, including ideologically or politically, with or without the expectation of quid pro quo.

…4.5.1. Abuse of Power shall be an indictable offense.

…4.5.2. The sentence for Abuse of Power shall be four months of banishment and/or ineligibility to hold public office.

SECTION V. MINOR CRIMES

…5.1. The category of “Minor Crimes” shall refer to the following illegal acts: Endorsement Cap Noncompliance, RMB Recruitment, Stolen Valor, and Abetment.

…5.2. Endorsement Cap Noncompliance shall be defined as any act which violates or attempts to violate the Endorsement Caps Act.

…5.2.1. Endorsement Cap Noncompliance shall be a summary offense.

…5.2.2. The sentence for Endorsement Cap Noncompliance shall be laid out in the Endorsement Caps Act.

…5.3. RMB Recruitment shall be defined as any act explicitly promoting foreign regional membership on the Regional Message Board after the issuance of an official warning.

…5.3.1. RMB Recruitment shall be a summary offense.

…5.3.2. The sentence for RMB Recruitment shall be immediate and indefinite banishment.

…5.4. Stolen Valor shall be defined as any act which violates the prohibitions of the Awards Act after the issuance of an official warning.

…5.4.1. Stolen Valor shall be a summary offense.

…5.4.2. The sentence for Stolen Valor shall be ineligibility to receive or hold any award of the Awards Act.

…5.5. Abetment shall be defined as any act by a Delegate, Vizier, Magister, and/or Arbiter to conceal a crime committed by another individual or impede a fair trial of the Conclave.

…5.5.1. Abetment shall be an indictable offense.

…5.5.2. The sentence for Abetment shall be between one month to four months of banishment and/or ineligibility to hold public office.

SECTION VI. CRIMINAL PROCEDURES

…6.1. Upon the filing of charges from the Praesidium, the Conclave shall hold a Pre-Trial to determine whether the charges may proceed to trial based on the provisions of the Concordat and Statutory Law.

…6.2. Once the Conclave determines that a trial may proceed, the Praesidium’s chosen Prosecutor and the Defendant or a representative thereof shall announce their presence and make opening statements. In their opening statements, both parties must introduce all evidence and witnesses. Any evidence or witness proposed following the opening statement may only be entered into the record with the approval of both parties.

…6.3. Witnesses during trial must submit a single statement to the Conclave and answer further questions from either party or the Conclave. Should they fail to answer further questioning, their testimony must be disregarded.

…6.4. All evidence shall be public unless determined by the Conclave to be sensitive to the integrity of the government. In this case, evidence shall still be shared to both parties, as well as the Provost and Delegate, to ensure the people may still have an informed advocate.

…6.5. Following the presentation of witnesses and evidence, both parties shall make closing statements, after which the Conclave shall convene in private chambers to determine guilt and sentencing.

…6.6. The verdict of the Conclave must be presented publicly, including a justification which answers the main arguments of both parties and a definitive sentencing.

…6.6.1. The standard of evidence for indictable offenses shall be reasonable doubt, meaning that the Conclave must not reasonably be able to declare a defendant guilty.

…6.6.2. The presence of intent and/or malice shall be taken into account to determine the severity of sentencing, as shall the effects or potential effects of an action or omission.

…6.7. Should either or both parties fail to adhere to the procedures laid forth by law, the Conclave may revoke their right to participate in future steps. In the event this clause is invoked, the Conclave may not disregard any participation leading up to said invocation.

…6.8. Further criminal procedures, and clarifications of the provisions of this act, may be laid out in the Standing Orders of the Conclave.

…6.9. Summary offenses shall be dealt with according to procedures laid out in the Standing Orders of the Praesidium.

…6.9.1. The standard of evidence for summary offenses shall be preponderance, meaning that the Praesidium must have reason to believe that it was more likely than not that a violation of the law had occurred.

…6.9.2. An appeal of a summary offense shall follow the procedures of a criminal trial, with the only difference being the substituted standard of evidence.

…6.10. In any appeal of a guilty verdict, only the sentencing may be overturned or altered.

[Mangegneithe]

I don’t remember why we dismantled the Criminal Code in the first place, but it’s a nightmare figuring out what’s legal or illegal when crimes can be found in almost every single law but there remains no index of crimes. This act is designed to fix that by bringing all crimes together in a single act and provide a little more information on criminal procedures, possible sentences, and the distinction between summary/indictable offenses. I also designed it to be very organized – categorizing four groups of four crimes each so that the information is clear and easy to understand. I’m open to making some alterations in these provisions – you may notice that some sentences are lowered or raised and some crimes are split into two or three different, distinct crimes. It’s all in the name of an organized criminal code, though, so I thought it fit as a replacement for everything we currently have.

[Ladona]

I dislike this proposal as it is currently written and would vote against its passage on the following grounds:

1. There is no legislation that should require the Provost to use discretionary editing to remove a clause;
   a) it runs contrary to the plain English term “discretionary”,
   b) it impedes transparency, and
   c) it directly contradicts Article B, Section 6, Paragraph 2 of the Concordat “Discretionary direct edits cannot change the legal effect of the legislation”;
   Without a separate repeal vote of the sections nominated in Section 1, Paragraph 1.6 for recordkeeping purposes, Section 1, Paragraph 1.6 becomes the record of authority to perform the repeal and is therefore a fundamental component of the legislation, not a mere grammatical or logical redundancy.
2. The inconsistency of one paragraph setting forth punishments, such as 2.6.2 while others refer back to the another Act for punishment guidelines, such as 5.2.2, is counterintuitive and opens the possibility of having to run two separate amendment votes should an Act expand its definitions of what is illegal and what isn’t, once for the Act itself and then once to amend the Criminal Code to include the appropriate punishment guidelines.
3. In my view, legislation that imposes a mandatory minimum for punishment, such as 5.5.2 instead of implementing punishment guidelines for the Conclave/Praesidium to use as they see fit should be discouraged.

I would support an actual index of crimes that referred back to the appropriate legislation as a post that could be edited by the Provost when laws are enacted and repealed, however, in my eyes that’s a forum management activity instead of a legislative activity.

EDIT: Grammatical and sensibility fixes.

[Mangegneithe]

@Ladona

“Discretionary direct edits cannot change the legal effect of the legislation”;

It doesn’t unrepeal the legislation to remove the text so it does not change the effect, and we’ve edited such a clause out before as an amendment, therefore eliminating that record, so there’s precedent for what I’m trying to do, it’s just more streamlined. That said, the way that’s done isn’t a big deal to me and I’m willing to just add in those amendments and repeals as separate proposals voted on together.

@Ladona

while others refer back to the another Act for punishment guidelines, such as 5.2.2

I’m wiling to edit that in.

@Ladona

opens the possibility of having to run two separate amendment votes should an Act expand its definitions of what is illegal and what isn’t, once for the Act itself and then once to amend the Criminal Code to include the appropriate punishment guidelines.

No? This still defines what the offense is, 5.2.2 just defers sentencing to another act. If you amend that act, 5.2.2 still defers sentencing to it. Only one amendment.

@Ladona

In my view, legislation that imposes a mandatory minimum for punishment, such as 5.5.2 instead of implementing punishment guidelines for the Conclave/Praesidium to use as they see fit should be discouraged.

The idea is that Conclave/Praesidium can’t say “This is illegal and your sentence is a zero day ban.”

@Ladona

I dislike this proposal as it is currently written and would vote against its passage on the following grounds

These are very, very small things that can absolutely be changed or discussed – I don’t understand why you’re so strongly opposed.

@Ladona

I would support an actual index of crimes that referred back to the appropriate legislation as a post that could be edited by the Provost when laws are enacted and repealed, however, in my eyes that’s a forum management activity instead of a legislative activity.

Wait so are you saying that you dislike the idea of a Criminal Code in general? That wasn’t clear at all in any of your grounds for voting against.

[Ladona]

@Mangegneithe

It doesn’t unrepeal the legislation to remove the text so it does not change the effect, and we’ve edited such a clause out before as an amendment, therefore eliminating that record, so there’s precedent for what I’m trying to do, it’s just more streamlined. That said, the way that’s done isn’t a big deal to me and I’m willing to just add in those amendments and repeals as separate proposals voted on together.

And I would have also voted against those as well on the same grounds. I am strongly of the belief that if one piece of legislation affects another to the extent that it adds to or removes from that legislation a record of its actions needs to be maintained for transparency; especially since the Provost can be ousted for misusing discretionary editing. If there is no record of a mandate to use their discretionary editing, their defense against malicious use of that clause of the Concordat is impeded.

@Mangegneithe

I’m wiling to edit that in. […] No? This still defines what the offense is, 5.2.2 just defers sentencing to another act. If you amend that act, 5.2.2 still defers sentencing to it. Only one amendment.

Combined as these two are related; if punishment guidelines are edited into the Criminal Code instead of remaining in their own Acts, I fail to see how there wouldn’t be two amendments for if what is criminal gets redefined – after all a criminal code is supposed to reflect the jurisdiction’s criminal law, if the law says “this activity is no longer criminal” but the activity is listed in this Criminal Code then this Criminal Code has to be amended to fix that; similarly if a new law is added to make something illegal that wasn’t previously, then this Criminal Code would have to be amended to include that.

@Mangegneithe

The idea is that Conclave/Praesidium can’t say “This is illegal and your sentence is a zero day ban.”

Isn’t that the point of having a Conclave/Praesidium to evaluate each case that comes before them though? To work out if something was minor enough to warrant censureship or major enough to warrant a ten year banishment? I understand the presence of maximal sentences within a criminal code, especially when they are contextualized by proper sentencing guidelines, but don’t see a need for a minimum.

@Mangegneithe

These are very, very small things that can absolutely be changed or discussed – I don’t understand why you’re so strongly opposed.

What is small to you is not small to others. As for why I am opposed, I haven’t hidden anything, I’ve listed all my current reasons in my previous post as well as this reply.

@Mangegneithe

Wait so are you saying that you dislike the idea of a Criminal Code in general? That wasn’t clear at all in any of your grounds for voting against.

I am not opposed to a Criminal Code in general; I am opposed to this Criminal Code as it is currently written and instead of just bringing issues to the conversation, I wanted to provide something that could be a middle-ground between what you are proposing and what my issues are. In the process I also sought to clarify that the alternative proposed wouldn’t need to be a legislative activity because it would just be a quick reference tool.

I ultimately agree that it is burdensome trying to find relevant legislation and that an index of laws would be beneficial, especially for new residents.

I would also like to note that as no vote has occurred, I have not voted against anything. All I have done is stated that I am opposed to the proposal as it is currently written and given my reasoning as to why I am opposed to it so that those reasons can be addressed or dismissed before a vote occurs.