Lawsuit: Pending Commonwealth of Redmont v. .sharkboy1217387 [2026] DCR 9

AmityBlamity

AmityBlamity

Citizen
Aventura Resident
Justice Department
Change Maker Popular in the Polls Legal Eagle 5th Anniversary
AmityBlamity
AmityBlamity
State Prosecutor
Joined
Jan 4, 2025
Messages
381

Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION

Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

V.

.sharkboy1217387
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Prosecution alleges criminal actions committed by the Defendant as follows:

.sharkboy1217387 sold at least two near-broken Elytras, omitting details regarding their condition to buyers, and thus engaging in the act of fraud.
Click to expand...


I. PARTIES
1. Commonwealth of Redmont (Prosecution)
2. .sharkboy1217387 (Defendant)

II. FACTS
  1. On 11/17/2025, .sharkboy1217387 advertised “come to spawn and [sic] but an elyta for $620 they have mending” (P-001)
  2. Vennefly told sharkboy they wanted to buy an Elytra (P-002).
  3. Sharkboy told Vennefly to “meet [them] at airport”.
  4. After Vennefly confirmed the price of $620, she paid Sharkboy.
  5. Sharkboy was then arrested for a seemingly unrelated manner. He assured Vennefly “don’t worry I dont scan”, “*scam”.
  6. After his release, Sharkboy told Vennefly to meet him at spawn (P-003).
  7. Sharkboy handed the Elytra to Vennefly, only for the latter to discover it was almost broken.
  8. Sharkboy defended his actions by saying it was “not fully broken” and “i never said it was fully durability”.
  9. After Vennefly accused this of being a scam, Sharkboy told Vennefly to “just go grind at a mob farm” and, in regards to the Elytra, claimed “not broken it had like 6 durability” (P-004).
  10. On 11/18/2025, DETECTIVHOLMES questioned another of Sharkboy’s victims, BleepBloopx (P-005).
  11. BleepBloopx testified that Sharkboy had said “no no i dont sell damaged elytras” to potential customers, after selling BleepBloopx an Elyta with “like 12 durability”.
  12. On 11/22/2025, DETECTIVHOLMES interrogated Sharkboy, who confessed to the fraudulent sales of elytra” (P-006).

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charge against the Defendant:
  • One count of Fraud. Per the Criminal Code Act, a person commits Fraud if they “knowingly or recklessly misrepresents or omits a material fact to another, causing the other party to rely on that misrepresentation”. .sharkboy1217387 knowingly withheld information concerning the shoddy quality of the Elytras in order to offload them to unsuspecting customers. By omitting the damage to these Elytras, and charging full price for them, Sharkboy delivered actual, quantifiable harm to his customers.
IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
  • 100 Penalty units and 10 minutes of imprisonment.

EVIDENCE:
P-001.png



P-004.png

P-005.png

P-006.png

WITNESSES:
Vennefly
BleepBloopx
DETECTIVHOLMES

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

Signed,
Prosecutor AmityBlamity

 
This is remanded to the DCR, the Court has original jurisdiction over cases involving more than 60 mins of jail time.
 

Writ of Summons

@.sharkboy1217387, is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Commonwealth of Redmont v. .sharkboy1217387 [2026] DCR 9

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

 

Objection


Breach of Procedure

Your Honour, the defendant has failed to appear. I request they be found in Contempt of Court, and either we proceed with default judgement, or a public defender be appointed.

 
AmityBlamity said:

Objection


Breach of Procedure

Your Honour, the defendant has failed to appear. I request they be found in Contempt of Court, and either we proceed with default judgement, or a public defender be appointed.

Click to expand...
Sustained. no contempt will be issued however a PD will be called.
 
I have assigned myself to this case as Public Defender.
 

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - HEARSAY

Your honour,
P-005 is inadmissible as it shows witness testimony without Defense counsel having the ability to respond to it.
I move for it to be struck following precedent set by Lawsuit: Adjourned - Unseatedduke1 v. The Radish [2024] DCR 26.

 

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

Your honour,
Unless opposing counsel can verify that the individual shown in P-006 is my client, I move for it to be struck.

 

Plea


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
PLEA

Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

.sharkboy1217387
Defendant

I. ENTRY OF PLEA
1. The Defense pleads guilty to one count of fraud.

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This (day) day of (month) (year)

 
Your honour,
Additionally, I ask to be heard on sentencing.
 
Superwoops said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

Your honour,
Unless opposing counsel can verify that the individual shown in P-006 is my client, I move for it to be struck.

Click to expand...
Your Honour,

Please find attached a conversation from the marketplace channel in the DC Discord, where "Ron" confirms his player name is indeed .sharkboy1217387.

1769785619177.png
 
Superwoops said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

Your honour,
Unless opposing counsel can verify that the individual shown in P-006 is my client, I move for it to be struck.

Click to expand...
Overruled. The commonwealth has provided evidence.
Superwoops said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - HEARSAY

Your honour,
P-005 is inadmissible as it shows witness testimony without Defense counsel having the ability to respond to it.
I move for it to be struck following precedent set by Lawsuit: Adjourned - Unseatedduke1 v. The Radish [2024] DCR 26.

Click to expand...
Sustained.
Superwoops said:
Your honour,
Additionally, I ask to be heard on sentencing.
Click to expand...
please present your statement within 48 hours.
 

Brief


Your honour,
I sincerely apologise for missing this deadline, it will not happen again. I call for this brief to nevertheless be accepted so as to not infringe on my client's Constitutional rights (32(4) and 32(9)).
I ask the Honourable Magistrate to assess the sentencing given in Lawsuit: Dismissed - The State v. VintageRoses_ [2021] FCR 26. While very old, this case is important precedent under our legal system.
In the aforementioned case, the Defendant engaged in an elaborate scheme to defraud a business, leading to over $20,000 in damages. Following a guilty verdict for 226 counts of Fraud, the Court sentenced the Defendant to 40 minutes in jail. While the Repealed - Jurisdiction Act is no longer valid, the maximum sentence then, for one count of fraud, used to be 10 minutes in jail. The current Act of Congress - Criminal Code Act also lists the maximum sentence for fraud at 10 minutes in jail.
Doing some simple math lets us know that each count of fraud corresponded to roughly 10.6 seconds in jail.
Given that total damages in said case were $22,600, each count created damages of $100.
Therefore, it is fair to assume that, for minor crimes like these with no aggravating factors, and this being my client's first offense, for every $100 in fraudulent damages caused, the Defendant should be sentenced to 10.6 seconds in jail. In our present case, damages totaled $620. Using the previously established guideline, the appropriate jail sentencing for my client should be (620/100)*10.6, which is equal to 65.72 seconds in jail.

As for the fine, the Defense feels that suggesting any number other than the pecuniary amount of damages caused would be completely arbitrary. Therefore, I ask the Court to sentence my client to 7 Penalty Units, or $700 (rounded up from $620).

In total, the Defense requests this Court to uphold the aforementioned binding verdict from the Federal Court and preserve the spirit of fairness by sentencing my client to one minute and 5.72 seconds in jail, as well as a fine of 7 Penalty Units, for one count of Fraud.​

Respectfully filed,
Superwoops - Public Defender's Office.

 
Apologies for the Delay as irl life has become busy, The commonwealth may file their statement within 48 hours if they so please.
 
dearev said:
Apologies for the Delay as irl life has become busy, The commonwealth may file their statement within 48 hours if they so please.
Click to expand...
Requesting a 24 hour extension.
 

Brief


Your Honour,

The public defender's precedent is ridiculous. They're citing a case that bears no real importance for our justice system. Such is its irrelevance, the only time it has ever been cited to plaintiff's knowledge was one week ago when the public defender dragged it out of its tomb. There is absolutely zero correlation between fine and jail time.

If we want something with actual relevance, let us instead look at the Sentencing guidelines provided in the Criminal Code Act:

5 - Sentencing
(1) Where an offence in this Code provides for a list or range of penalties, including fines, imprisonment, or other sanctions, it shall be within the discretion of the judicial officer to impose any part or the whole of the prescribed penalty, subject to the limits set out in this Code.

(2) In exercising discretion, the judicial officer shall consider—
(a) the nature and seriousness of the offence;
(b) the intent and conduct of the offender;
(c) any aggravating or mitigating circumstances;
(d) the offender’s criminal history or lack thereof;
(e) the protection of the community and the deterrence of future offences.

(3) A judicial officer may impose a lesser sentence than the maximum provided for the offence, or a combination of penalties, unless—
(a) the law specifically requires the imposition of a mandatory minimum penalty; or
(b) the offence expressly prohibits alternatives to the maximum sentence.

(4) Nothing in this section limits the authority of the courts to impose additional lawful remedies such as restitution, damages, or community service where such powers are established under this Code or another Act.
Click to expand...

Specifically in regards to (2), let's consider:
The nature and seriousness of the offence: Fraud is an incredibly serious offence. Depriving law-abiding citizens of their hard-earned cash is disgraceful.
The intent and conduct of the offender: Sharkboy was well aware what he was doing was illegal, based on the evidence provided, and still chose to do it anyway.
Any aggravating or mitigating circumstances: None whatsoever.
The offender's criminal history or lack thereof: While prior offences are currently unknown, the evidence provided shows he committed fraud at least twice.
The protection of the community and the deterrence of future offences: I think the Court will agree that getting scammed is a heart-wrenching, frustrating experience, that can spoil any victim's day. Fraud therefore needs to be punished to the maximum extent possible, for the benefit of everyone else.

In short, fraudulent players need to be punished to the highest extent possible. They and potential fraudsters need to be deterred as much as possible, in order to safeguard our community. If you impose minimal jail time and a minuscule fine, then the defendant is just going to see that as "the cost of doing business", and potentially continue their criminal rampage.

Thank you.

 
the PD program may file their sentencing brief if they so wish within 48 hours.
 
dearev said:
the PD program may file their sentencing brief if they so wish within 48 hours.
Click to expand...
Your Honour, they already filed their sentencing brief, unless I am mistaken.
 
AmityBlamity said:
Your Honour, they already filed their sentencing brief, unless I am mistaken.
Click to expand...
opps, forgive me im quite tired. Court is now in reccess pending a verdict.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top