Or alternatively: it's only a crime if you get caught.
A really big and normalized one is tax evasion in the form of paying for items or services in cash without administration. Most if not all people you can hire for jobs around the house - gardeners, cleaners, handimen, plumbers, construction, painting, etc - will take cash instead of going on record.
The challenge there is that this takes trust, because you take a risk as well / there are no assurances if they do half a job. Make sure you get an address so you can torch their house or business if they mess you about.
> The challenge there is that this takes trust, because you take a risk as well / there are no assurances if they do half a job. Make sure you get an address so you can torch their house or business if they mess you about.
In what country is your recourse against a business determined by whether or not the business is paying its due tax?
A good lawyer will rarely outright tell you something is a crime or not. An accountant may tell you not to do something because it's illegal. A lawyer will instead focus on how good a case could be made against you and what the tradeoff would look like.
Strongly disagree on this. Where I am, a lawyer will tell you squarely if something is criminal. If the facts or law are unclear, they may advise about the balance of risk that creates, but the conclusion (if x, therefore crime) will be clear.
I was oversimplifying, I guess. Lawyers will generally tell you what law something may violate but they will offer context. Something can be legal or illegal depending on what information is available. A good lawyer will tell you not only whether something could technically be considered a crime but will also give you feedback on how to avoid doing that (which may change nothing about the actual thing you plan to do, just how you go about it).
If something is criminal is decided in court. A lawyer advises on how likely the court is to decide that way.
The beauty is that one does not even have to break the law to get a wider perspective this way. Getting caught or not getting caught for a crime is another thing all together.
I'm sure there are innocuous ways of implementing this advice, but I think it also leads to a lot of degeneracy. I understand many people prioritize success and that this is probably a common part of business. But that doesn't make the principle "it's ok unless there's a formal reason saying it's not ok" any less awful.
It's not advice, it's how the law works. The law forbids or regulates things, the law doesn't give permission. Luckily for you (and any of us), the law forbids a whole lot of things. But still, the starting point is: one can do things unless they are forbidden, not the other way around.
"You are allowed to do anything, until the law forbids it or stuff is regulated in a certain way. Looking at it from this point of view, the world immediately opens up for you."
You're speaking on the subject of allowable behavior and you describe your thoughts as a "point of view." That's not strictly matter of fact and it can be interpreted as a prescription. "Allowable behavior" is not the same thing as "behavior which isn't explicitly forbidden by law."
You are allowed to do anything, until the law forbids it or stuff is regulated in a certain way.
Looking at it from this point of view, the world immediately opens up for you.