Lawsuit: Adjourned Commonwealth of Redmont Vs CHUD.Inc [2026] FCR 19

[aubunny]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION


Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

CHUD.Inc
Defendant

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

On December 11th, the Commonwealth became aware of the possession of Mininukes and Fatmans', classified by the Criminal Terminology Act as a Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD) [Section 5.1.a.ii and Section 5.1.a.i of the CTA Respectively.] within the chestshops of a "CHUD.Inc", a sole proprietorship beholden to the user "CzarKovalev". These chestshops were located on the plots C530, and CBD041. Through the search of publicly accessible areas within these plots, conducted on January 10th, 2026, the RBI was able to determine the intent to sell both products in publicly accessible and ongoing chestshops, constituting Conspiracy to Commit Weapon of Mass Destruction Trafficking, as the chestshops within the property owned by the defendant would hold 3,485 WMDs in total. Additionally, warrants conducted by the RBI reveal the Trafficking of 257 WMDs between defendant and citizen Taskings_, who utilizing their access to the chestshops, conducted transactions between the two beholden parties. [P-02] [P-03] An Additional 8 WMDs were sold to the public, with 3 different individual sales, [P-01][P-04][P-05] constituting the Trafficking of Weapon of Mass Destruction as defined in the Redmont Criminal Code Part VI, §8.

I. PARTIES
1. Commonwealth of Redmont
2. CzarKovalev
3. Chud.Inc

II. FACTS
1. On or before the Date of January 10th 2026, CHUD.Inc was holding chestshops within the plots C530 and CBD041
2. These chestshops, at the date of seizure of its contents, contained a combined 3,485 items
3. These referenced items fall under the category of WMD, per the Criminal Terminology Act.
4. The Criminal Code Act Part VI, §8 defines Weapon of Mass Destruction Trafficking as "sells, distributes, or traffics any substance deemed to be a weapon of mass destruction".
5. In one instance, 192 WMDs were traded between the defendant, and citizen Taskings_
6. In an additional separate instance, 25 WMDs were traded between the defendant, and citizen Taskings_
7. On or around January 7th, 2026, CHUD.Inc sold 2 WMDs to buyer JustaDumpling, with the sale taking place within either C530 or CBD041.
8. On or around January 8th, 2026 CHUD.Inc sold 1 WMD to buyer roy405, with the sale taking place within either C530 or CBD041.
9. On or around the 10th of December, 2025, 5 WMDs were sold to buyer NukeyPooky, with the sale taking place within either C530 or CBD041.
10. Facts 5 through 9 constitute either distribution, transfer, or sale between parties.

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. 1. Five Counts of Weapon of Mass Destruction Trafficking. Given that the sale of both Fatmans and MiniNukes is illegal under the Criminal Code Act Part VI, § 8. One charge for each individual instance of distribution.


IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
300 Penalty Units [30 Thousand Redmont Dollars] for 5 counts of Weapon of Mass Destruction Trafficking,Given a reduced sentencing from 100 Penalty Units per crime.
75 Minutes of Imprisonment, for 5 counts of Weapon of Mass Destruction Trafficking, Given a reduced sentencing from the 60 minutes Imprisonment per charge for the crime.

V. WITNESS LIST
1) Superwoops -RBI Investigator in charge of investigation into CHUD.INC


VI. EVIDENCE:

Spoiler: P-01

Spoiler: P-02

Spoiler: P-03

Spoiler: P-04

Spoiler: P-05

Spoiler: P-06

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 16th day of March 2026

 

[Franciscus]

Writ of Summons

@CzarKovalev, is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Commonwealth of Redmont Vs CHUD.Inc [2026] FCR 19

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.

 

[aubunny]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

The Plaintiff brings to attention the fact that the defendant CHUD.Inc's sole proprietor, CzarKovalev, is permanently deported.
Deported players have no rights in our nation (SCR 2 [2025])
Pursuant to The Legal Entity Act (Section 10), a sole proprietorship cannot be represented independently of its owner.

There is no defense allotted to the opposing party, and as such, the case should go to default judgement, similar to precedent set in (FCR 122 [2025]) or (FCR 57 [2025])

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

The Plaintiff brings to attention the fact that the defendant CHUD.Inc's sole proprietor, CzarKovalev, is permanently deported.
Deported players have no rights in our nation (SCR 2 [2025])
Pursuant to The Legal Entity Act (Section 10), a sole proprietorship cannot be represented independently of its owner.

There is no defense allotted to the opposing party, and as such, the case should go to default judgement, similar to precedent set in (FCR 122 [2025]) or (FCR 57 [2025])

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER - MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

Granted.

The Court is in recess pending a verdict. Should this Court have a question of the prosecution, this Court shall issue a corresponding Order to Show Cause pursuant to Section 10 of the Regulations of the Federal Court.

 

[Franciscus]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - PROVIDENCE OF EVIDENCE

The Court, upon examining this case, notes several screenshots are present, and that an investigator is on the witness list. It is this Court's preliminary guess that the prosecution may have intended to have that investigator testify in Court in order to provide corroboration as to the relation of the various screenshots to the Defendant(s), or to help walk the Court through the investigation.

Prosecution requested default judgement (Post No. 3). No such testimony has been provided, so this Court must evaluate the case on its record. Default judgment does does not mean that the full prayer in the complaint is necessarily granted (The Commonwealth of Redmont v. ReinausPrinzzip [2021] SCR 20, granting prayers partially; Vernicia v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 51, granting a default judgement for the Plaintiff and ruling for defense). Instead, upon granting default judgement, a "presiding officer still has the ability to evaluate the case and ultimately rule for either party" ([2025] FCR 51 - Appeal).

As criminal charges must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and in line with Section 10.2 of the Regulations of the Federal Court, the Court seeks to ensure that the record is adequately developed.

The Court thus orders the Prosecution to respond to the following questions within the next 72 hours:

1. To what extent the Commonwealth possess any additional evidence that may be relevant to the chain-of-possession, or providence, of the exhibits contained in the complaint?
2. To what extent does the Commonwealth wish to waive its ability to call witnesses in this case, as opposed to proceding through the normal course of a trial to witness testimony?

Yours,
Judge Multi

 

[aubunny]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - PROVIDENCE OF EVIDENCE

The Court, upon examining this case, notes several screenshots are present, and that an investigator is on the witness list. It is this Court's preliminary guess that the prosecution may have intended to have that investigator testify in Court in order to provide corroboration as to the relation of the various screenshots to the Defendant(s), or to help walk the Court through the investigation.

Prosecution requested default judgement (Post No. 3). No such testimony has been provided, so this Court must evaluate the case on its record. Default judgment does does not mean that the full prayer in the complaint is necessarily granted (The Commonwealth of Redmont v. ReinausPrinzzip [2021] SCR 20, granting prayers partially; Vernicia v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 51, granting a default judgement for the Plaintiff and ruling for defense). Instead, upon granting default judgement, a "presiding officer still has the ability to evaluate the case and ultimately rule for either party" ([2025] FCR 51 - Appeal).

As criminal charges must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and in line with Section 10.2 of the Regulations of the Federal Court, the Court seeks to ensure that the record is adequately developed.

The Court thus orders the Prosecution to respond to the following questions within the next 72 hours:

1. To what extent the Commonwealth possess any additional evidence that may be relevant to the chain-of-possession, or providence, of the exhibits contained in the complaint?
2. To what extent does the Commonwealth wish to waive its ability to call witnesses in this case, as opposed to proceding through the normal course of a trial to witness testimony?

Yours,
Judge Multi

Brief

Your honor, We are pleased to respond to these questions and more.
It was originally the intention of the plaintiff to lay out more information regarding the case, as the plaintiff attempts to mitigate bloat within case filings. By your grace we shall provide some more illumination.

Providence
Allow the plaintiff to begin by breaking down the already existing evidence;

P-01, P-04, P-05
P-01, 4, and 5, Collectively called the "Chestshop sales" Are pieces of evidence collected within our search and seizure warrant of the plots C530,

P-01 showcases the transactions brought to us by the DOC, these contain clear data of Mininukes being purchased from a chestshop owned by the defendant, with its Location being 3440, 71, 3765, which resides upon the plot C530 [P-07]

P-04 and P-05 are sadly collected during the month of January, the same month as reported transactions and as such, did not have the blessing of being provided in proper format. It is still clear to see that through provided search warrants [P-08] That these sales took place under the DB CHUD.Inc, with "arrow" representative of mininukes, as admitted by staff [P-08]

P-02, P-03
P-02 and P-03 are our "Discrete Transactions", Describing two parties using mutual chestshop access to distribute WMDs. Both instances showcase CzarKovalev inputting WMDs into a chestshop, found within C530 as found with its coordinates show in both screenshots, and then said Weapons of Mass Destruction being distributed to another player by their shared mutual access to the chest. This constitutes textbook distribution.

The intention of the evidence provided was to link a clear line between the possession within the plots of C530 and/or CBD041, possession has already been fully ruled upon by seizure warrant [P-09] and it is readily apparent that the a number of produced WMDs were trafficked.

New Evidence
With your honors permission, the plaintiff would like to motion the following into life.

Spoiler: P-07

P-07 shows the coordinates of the transaction, which lines up directly to the plot which during the date of December 10th, was owned by the defendant.

Spoiler: P-08

P-08 shows the direct correlation with previous evidence to a fulfilled search warrant, with P-08 in mind, it is clear that the evidence presented in the brief is not unsubstantial, and has direct ties to the defendant.

Spoiler: P-09

P-09 shows the seizure of 3453 mininuke's, and 32 fatman's on the Plot C530, showing further evidence that the alleged transfers did take place for the defendant, as they were currently in possession of WMDs, with clear intent to traffic [P-01] [P-04] [P-05] with chestshops containing WMDs on the premises.

Here was the evidence the plaintiff would have submitted in the event of an actual discovery period. Just further clarity pointing the transactions to the defendant.

WITNESS
And finally, we come to the question as to the validity of proceeding through normal course of trial to the witness testimony. It is the opinion of the plaintiff that the value of additional testimony as provided by logs at this time would be about equal to the addition of a witness to confirm these facts as gathered legitimately. As such, the plaintiff waives their right to witness questioning in favor of going direct to verdict. Pending additional orders to show cause.

 

[Franciscus]

Brief

Your honor, We are pleased to respond to these questions and more.
It was originally the intention of the plaintiff to lay out more information regarding the case, as the plaintiff attempts to mitigate bloat within case filings. By your grace we shall provide some more illumination.

Providence
Allow the plaintiff to begin by breaking down the already existing evidence;

P-01, P-04, P-05
P-01, 4, and 5, Collectively called the "Chestshop sales" Are pieces of evidence collected within our search and seizure warrant of the plots C530,

P-01 showcases the transactions brought to us by the DOC, these contain clear data of Mininukes being purchased from a chestshop owned by the defendant, with its Location being 3440, 71, 3765, which resides upon the plot C530 [P-07]

P-04 and P-05 are sadly collected during the month of January, the same month as reported transactions and as such, did not have the blessing of being provided in proper format. It is still clear to see that through provided search warrants [P-08] That these sales took place under the DB CHUD.Inc, with "arrow" representative of mininukes, as admitted by staff [P-08]

P-02, P-03
P-02 and P-03 are our "Discrete Transactions", Describing two parties using mutual chestshop access to distribute WMDs. Both instances showcase CzarKovalev inputting WMDs into a chestshop, found within C530 as found with its coordinates show in both screenshots, and then said Weapons of Mass Destruction being distributed to another player by their shared mutual access to the chest. This constitutes textbook distribution.

The intention of the evidence provided was to link a clear line between the possession within the plots of C530 and/or CBD041, possession has already been fully ruled upon by seizure warrant [P-09] and it is readily apparent that the a number of produced WMDs were trafficked.

New Evidence
With your honors permission, the plaintiff would like to motion the following into life.

Spoiler: P-07

View attachment 77192

P-07 shows the coordinates of the transaction, which lines up directly to the plot which during the date of December 10th, was owned by the defendant.

Spoiler: P-08

View attachment 77195

P-08 shows the direct correlation with previous evidence to a fulfilled search warrant, with P-08 in mind, it is clear that the evidence presented in the brief is not unsubstantial, and has direct ties to the defendant.

Spoiler: P-09

View attachment 77196

P-09 shows the seizure of 3453 mininuke's, and 32 fatman's on the Plot C530, showing further evidence that the alleged transfers did take place for the defendant, as they were currently in possession of WMDs, with clear intent to traffic [P-01] [P-04] [P-05] with chestshops containing WMDs on the premises.

Here was the evidence the plaintiff would have submitted in the event of an actual discovery period. Just further clarity pointing the transactions to the defendant.

WITNESS
And finally, we come to the question as to the validity of proceeding through normal course of trial to the witness testimony. It is the opinion of the plaintiff that the value of additional testimony as provided by logs at this time would be about equal to the addition of a witness to confirm these facts as gathered legitimately. As such, the plaintiff waives their right to witness questioning in favor of going direct to verdict. Pending additional orders to show cause.

Acknowledged. Court is in recess pending verdict. Expected timeline for verdict should be in the next 24-72 hours.

 

[Franciscus]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT - Commonwealth of Redmont Vs CHUD.Inc [2026] FCR 19

​

---

I. Summary of Complaint​

The Commonwealth of Redmont alleges that the Defendant, a sole proprietorship named CHUD.Inc., is criminally liable for 5 counts of Weapon of Mass Destruction Trafficking.

The prosecution alleges that Defendant had chestshops at plots C530 and CBD041, containing "3,485 items" that were later seized by the Commonwealth for being Weapons of Mass Destruction. Prosecution alleges that the Defendant engaged in the sale, distribution, or trafficking of such weapons.

Prosecution alleges that Weapons of Mass Destruction Trafficking occurred in 5 separate instances, and seeks to levy "[o]ne charge for each individual instance of distribution." The Court understands each instance as alleged to uniquely relate to a particular numbered factual allegation; one instance corresponding to the fifth factual allegation, another for the sixth, another for the seventh, yet another for the eighth, and a fifth and final charge corresponding to the ninth factual allegation.

II. Findings of Fact​

II.1 The criminal prosecution is brought by the Commonwealth against Chud.INC, a sole proprietorship​

Upon examining the case, the complaint lists three parties to the case: the Commonwealth, CzarKovalev, and Chud.Inc (Compl., Section 1).

I. PARTIES
1. Commonwealth of Redmont
2. CzarKovalev
3. Chud.Inc

It can be understood, as common practice of the Court, that the Commonwealth is the prosecution. The declaration of parties, however, does not specifically identify which party is the defendant. This Court then must answer: who is the defendant in this case?

The prosecution has stated "the defendant CHUD.Inc's sole proprietor, CzarKovalev," (Post No. 3, Prosecution's Motion for Default Judgement), and includes CHUD.Inc in the header of the complaint:

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION


Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

CHUD.Inc
Defendant

(Compl.).

As such, the Court concludes that the defendant is CHUD.Inc.

II.2 CHUD.Inc sold mininukes on multiple occasions​

The prosecution proffered screenshots of a staff ticket containing screenshots of "sales of mininukes in the last week by CHUD.Inc" (Post No. 6, Exhibit P-08). The screenshots of that ticket contained several images of partially displayed in-game screenshots. Among these, one image clearly contained the string "tadumpling bou" and the other contained the string "405 bought".

II.2.A On one occasion, CHUD.Inc sold mininukes to JustaDumpling on 7 January 2026​

Within Exhibit P-08, a separate screenshot is depicted within the greater screenshot that contains the string "taDumpling bou". This can be matched with another image in evidence that shows that "JustaDumpling bought 2.0x arrow for $400" on the date "07-01-2026" (Compl., Exhibit P-04). Putting these two pieces of evidence together, we conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that CHUD.Inc indeed sold two mininukes to JustaDumpling on the seventh of January 2026.

II.2.B On another occasion, CHUD.Inc sold mininukes to Roy405 on 8 January 2026​

Within Exhibit P-08, a separate screenshot is depicted within the greater screenshot that contains the string "405 bought". This can be matched with another image in evidence that shows that "Roy 405 bought 1.0x arrow for $400" on the date "08-01-2026" (Compl., Exhibit P-05). Putting these two pieces of evidence together, we conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that CHUD.Inc indeed sold one mininuke to Roy405 on the eighth of January 2026.

II.2.C On another occasion, CHUD.Inc sold mininukes to NukeyPookey in December 2025​

The prosecution provided sales logs obtained from the Department of Commerce showing 5 sales of "ammomininuke" from store "b:CHUD.inc" on 10 December 2025 (Compl., Exhibits P-01 and P-06). The logs give the location of the store as "3440, 71, 3765". We thus conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that CHUD.inc indeed sold mininukes to LukeyPookey on 10 December 2025.

II.2.D On another occasion, CzarKovalev placed mininukes in a container at (3439, 71, 3765), of which 192 mininukes were later picked up by Taskings_, but it is unclear whether than container was owned or operated by Defendant CHUD.inc.​

Within Exhibit P-08, a separate screenshot is depicted within the greater screenshot that contains the strings:

• "_ removed x192"
• "alev added x5 a"

This can be matched with another image in evidence that shows that "Taskings_ removed x192 arrows" and "CzarKovalev added x5 arrows" (Compl., Exhibit P-03). What's more, these are labeled as "c350 mininuke chest logs" in that staff ticket. As such, the Court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that CzarKovalev placed mininukes in a container and that a different player later took mininukes from that same container. On full review of the evidence, the Court concludes that greater than 192 mininukes were placed in a box by CzarKovalev and that no fewer than 192 of these were later taken by Taskings_.

This Court, however, has reasonable doubt as to whether this chestshop was actually owned and/or operated by CHUD.inc. While the location of "3439, 71, 3765" shown in Exhibit P-03 is adjacent to the location of "3440, 71, 3765" given in the DoC sales logs previously noted (Compl., Exhibits P-01 and P-06), the court cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that these two chests were indeed the same. The Court has no evidence-in-case that cuts against the conclusion that the chests were different, and it is reasonable to suspect that such chest may have been personally locked or personally operated by CzarKovalev rather than having functioned as a chestshop for CHUD.inc.

II.2.E On another occasion, CzarKovalev placed a fatman in a container at (3446, 71, 3757) that was later picked up by Taskings_, but it is unclear whether than container was owned or operated by Defendant CHUD.inc.​

Within the evidence-in-case, CzarKovalev is depicted as having placed 1 fatman in a chest, then Taskings_ put in 24 and picked up 1 (Post No. 6, Exhibit P-09). This is depicted in a staff ticket as being among the "c530 fatman chestlogs".

As such, the Court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that CzarKovalev placed a fatman in a container and that a different player later took mininukes from that same container.

(As to exact location: this one is a bit harder to determine than in II.2.D, as the Z-coordinates are partially obscured by an informational box. However, the Court was able to discern the location by looking at the images presented carefully and closely whilst zooming in: it is 3446, 71, 3752.)

That being said, similar concerns to those in Section II.2.D drive the presence of reasonable doubt as to CHUD.inc's operation of the chest: it is possible that there was a chest personally operated or simply locked by CzarKovalev at the plot rather than being used by CHUD.inc. The Court has no evidence-in-case that contradicts this possibility, and based on evidence-in-case the Court cannot discard that this chest may have been personally locked or personally operated by CzarKovalev rather than having functioned as a chestshop for CHUD.inc.

III. Opinion of the Court​

III.1 On the status of the defendant as a legal entity​

III.1.A The old Legal Entity Act must be used in this Court's analysis​

In the recent history of Redmont, two bills have been present that have borne the name "Legal Entity Act". The first one, which this Court will refer to as the "old Legal Entity Act", is a now-repealed law that was in effect from its signing until the passage of what we will call the "new Legal Entity Act". That new Legal Entity Act came into law at Feb 7, 2026, 12:16 PM, Eastern Standard Time.

The Supreme Court has previously examined the application of the law of legal entities to cases where all relevant facts occured prior to a change in law and a case was filed after that change in law, finding that the law at the time of the alleged breach of law is the applicable law (see: In re [2026] FCR 8 | [2026] SCR 8, "Even though the complaint was filed on Feb 7, 2026, 6:08 PM GMT-5, and the present LEA was passed Feb 7, 2026, 12:16 PM GMT-5, the prior LEA is the controlling law because the alleged breach of law occurred under the old law").

As all breaches of law in this case occurred prior to the change in law, and during the time when the old Legal Entity Act was active, we apply the old Legal Entity Act here.

III.1.B Under the old Legal Entity Act, sole proprietorships were legal entities that can be sued as a legal entity​

The old LEA noted that "sole proprietorships shall still be regarded as a legal entity" (old LEA, Section 10(2)). Under that act, legal entities "may be sued in any judicial, administrative, or other proceeding in its name as a legal entity" (id., Section 4(2)).

III.1.C While liability of CHUD.inc extends to CzarKovalev, not all personal liability of CzarKovalev can be applied to CHUD.inc as a legal entity​

CzarKovalev is a natural person. CHUD.inc is a legal entity. This case is filed against the latter, not the former.

As, we must ask: what is the relationship between criminal liability of a sole proprietorship and the criminal liability of its underlying owner? When a company commits a crime, is the owner held accountable? And when an owner commits a crime, what is the impact of that crime on the sole proprietorship?

Under the old LEA, "All assets and liabilities of the sole proprietorship shall be regarded as assets and liabilities of the owner of the sole proprietorship" (id., Section 10(3)).

Our answer proceeds from reading the old LEA "as a harmonious whole" (see: fickogames v. Ollie_MineCraft [2026] DCR 22, Post No. 26); that is, we read the text as a whole and understand that provisions of a text should be interpreted in a way that renders them compatible with each other when possible.

The line we draw through compatibility is as follows:

1. Sole proprietorships under the old LEA are legal entities in their own right, not merely alternate names for the person who owns it. They can sue and be sued, and thus have a unique and cognizable legal identity before the Courts.
2. Nevertheless, a sole proprietorship entirely passes through its assets and liabilities to the underlying owner.

In the Court's reading, legal action against a sole proprietorship must be filed against that sole proprietorship for things done by the sole proprietorship. Merely because an owner of a sole proprietorship committed a crime does not mean that a sole proprietorship can be prosecuted for an owner's crime; even as the liability will ultimately fall to the owner on a pass-through basis, the prosecution must prove that the sole proprietorship itself bears direct criminal liability for a sole proprietorship to be convicted at trial.

III.2 On the five charges​

In the factual allegations, the Prosecution alleges as follows:

5. In one instance, 192 WMDs were traded between the defendant, and citizen Taskings_
6. In an additional separate instance, 25 WMDs were traded between the defendant, and citizen Taskings_
7. On or around January 7th, 2026, CHUD.Inc sold 2 WMDs to buyer JustaDumpling, with the sale taking place within either C530 or CBD041.
8. On or around January 8th, 2026 CHUD.Inc sold 1 WMD to buyer roy405, with the sale taking place within either C530 or CBD041.
9. On or around the 10th of December, 2025, 5 WMDs were sold to buyer NukeyPooky, with the sale taking place within either C530 or CBD041.
10. Facts 5 through 9 constitute either distribution, transfer, or sale between parties.

(Compl., Section II(5)-(10)).

The charges themselves are described as follows:

The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. 1. Five Counts of Weapon of Mass Destruction Trafficking. Given that the sale of both Fatmans and MiniNukes is illegal under the Criminal Code Act Part VI, § 8. One charge for each individual instance of distribution.

(Compl., Section III).

What constitutes each of the five counts? While there are cases where "better briefing is needed to properly explain to the presiding judge the position of the litigants" (In re [2026] FCR 8 | [2026] SCR 8) before any judgement can be rendered, "this Court shall attempt to fill in the gaps" (Superwoops v. Trentrick_Lamar [2026] DCR 18) in light of the complaint's whole text.

First, as to the statutory requirements of "Weapon of Mass Destruction Trafficking". The Prosecution refers to Criminal Code Act, Part VI, Section 8 in their charging statement (Compl., Section III). We must be careful to use the law as it was at the time; such "is the controlling law because the alleged breach of law occurred under the old law" (In re [2026] FCR 8 | [2026] SCR 8).

The alleged crimes occurred between 10 December 2025 (Compl., factual allegation No. 9) and 10 January 2026 (Compl., factual allegation No. 1). Reviewing the law for amendments, the Court notes that the Firearms Licensing Act modified the definition of "Weapon of Mass Destruction Trafficking" effective 30 days after the passage of the bill's 26 January 2026 signing. As this occurred after every breach of law alleged, we must apply the law as it was before the Firearms Licensing Act:

8 - Weapon of Mass Destruction Trafficking
Offence Type: Indictable
Penalty: Up to 100 Penalty Units; up to 60 minutes imprisonment
A person commits an offence if the person:
(a) sells, distributes, or traffics any substance deemed to be a weapon of mass destruction;

(see: Firearms Licensing Act, Part III(6)).

What constitutes a Weapon of Mass Destruction? Under the Criminal Terminology Act, the definition is as follows:

5- Weapons Of Mass Destruction

(1) Weapons of Mass Destruction (Or WMDs) are to be defined as any item deemed by Congress to meet this category.

(a) The list of Weapons of Mass Destruction is the following:

(i) Fatman
(ii) Mininuke

(Criminal Terminology Act, Section 5).

In light of this all, the Court sees the five charges of Weapon of Mass Destruction Trafficking as follows, and adjudges them as below:

III.2.A Charge 1: Regarding the alleged trading of 192 WMDs described in the fifth factual allegation​

Not guilty.

In Section II.2.D, the Court found that greater than 192 mininukes were placed in a box by CzarKovalev and that 192 of these these were taken away by Taskings_. This is not disputed, but the charge in this case is levied directly against CHUD.Inc rather than CzarKovalev.

The evidence-in-case is insufficient to establish that CHUD.inc, as a legal entity, directly participated in the transfer of 192 mininukes from CzarKovalev to Taskings_ (see: Section II.2.D). As such, this Court cannot conclude guilt on this count beyond a reasonable doubt, and must find the Defendant not guilty.

III.2.B Charge 2: Regarding the alleged trading of 25 WMDs described in the sixth factual allegation​

Not guilty.

In Section II.2.D, the Court found that no fewer than 1 fatman was placed in a box by CzarKovalev and that this fatman was taken away by Taskings_. This is not disputed, but the charge in this case is levied directly against CHUD.Inc rather than against CzarKovalev.

The evidence-in-case is insufficient to establish that CHUD.inc, as a legal entity, directly participated in the transfer of the fatman (see: Section II.2.E). As such, this Court cannot conclude guilt on this count beyond a reasonable doubt, and must find the Defendant not guilty.

III.2.C Charge 3: Regarding the alleged sales of 2 WMDs to JustaDumpling in the seventh factual allegation​

Guilty.

As found in Section II.2.A of this verdict, CHUD.Inc sold 2 mininukes to JustaDumpling on 7 January 2026. This is an open-and-shut case of Weapon of Mass Destruction Trafficking, as it is a direct sale of mininukes (a type of WMD).

III.2.D Charge 4: Regarding the alleged sales of 1 WMD to roy405 in the eighth factual allegation​

Guilty.

As found in Section II.2.B of this verdict, CHUD.Inc sold 1 mininuke to roy405 on 8 January 2026. This is an open-and-shut case of Weapon of Mass Destruction Trafficking, as it is a direct sale of a mininuke.

III.2.E Charge 5: Regarding the alleged sales of 5 WMDs to NukeyPooky in the ninth factual allegation​

Guilty.

As found in Section II.2.C of this verdict, CHUD.Inc sold 5 mininukes to NukeyPooky in December 2025. Once again, this is a direct sale of mininukes (a type of WMD), which clearly and directly violates the prohibition against Weapon of Mass Destruction Trafficking under the Criminal Code Act.

---

Having established guilt, and having found the defendant guilty on three counts, the Federal Court now moves to the trial's punishment phase. "As has been informally discussed and slowly adopted, the punishment phase of the trial is the distinct and separate moment where both parties may present their case as to their arguments for the punishment" (Commonwealth of Redmont v. ImzaKRD [2025] SCR 20).

Therefore, the prosecution (@aubunny) shall have 72 hours to present a brief on sentencing.

 

[aubunny]

Brief

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

SENTENCING


The Plaintiff brings forward the sentencing factors outlined within the Criminal Code Act for the requested penalty of, Originally 300 Penalty Units and 75 Minutes of Imprisonment for 5 counts of Weapon of Mass Destruction Trafficking, Having only been found guilty of 3 counts, contrary to the recommendation. The Plaintiff hereby proposes the new recommendation, 200 Penalty Units [20 Thousand Redmont Dollars] with no Imprisonment charge. These recommendations are found upon the sentencing principles within the CCA, listed as:

(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.

The Plaintiff will now break down each offense, and levy an explanation as to how to reach the same conclusion as we have in this reduced sentencing from the listed maximum of 300 Penalty Units

Nature and Seriousness of the Offence
SCR 20 [2025] uses specific factual context to evaluate seriousness for sentencing, The Trafficking of WMDs consisted of selling illicit items through Chestshops found within Redmont Jurisdiction, sold to Redmont citizens. Additionally, this act is a direct crime with a victim, arming people with Illegal weapons without the proper procedure as defined in the CCA. This weighs against the defendant in seriousness.

Intent and Conduct of the Offender

Evidence establishes that Chud_Inc accepted money in return for Weapons of Mass Destruction through the use of Chestshops, which are a multi-step process to set up, and do not allow for the accidental sale of an item not intentionally configured to be sold within the shop. As such, the conduct can be seen as deliberate, showing clear intent to commit the offense as charged.

Protection Of Community and Deterrence

SCR 20 [2025] Finds that "The Court must ensure that the sentence protects the community and deters future misconduct" Weapons of Mass Destruction are a direct danger to the community, and nothing enables the use of them more than distributing them. With them being used to destroy property within reveille, and disrupt the safety and sanity of daily Reveille life. This weighs against the defendant.

The Rest of Them

As for the rest of Part 1.5.2 of the Criminal Code Act, namely "any aggravating or mitigating circumstances" and "the offender's criminal history or lack thereof". The Plaintiff brings forward no relevant argument regarding any of these two sentencing applications in the case at hand. SCR 20 [2025] shows that in such cases, the court shall treat these factors as neutral. The Plaintiff concurs the same for this case.

Closure

With these factors in mind, the Plaintiff brings forward the recommended sentencing of 200 Penalty Units for 3 counts of Trafficking Weapons of Mass Destruction. A reduced penalty amount as not all sentencing factors have been filled, alongside with all imprisonment charges lifted, as the party liable to this sentencing is permanently deported, being unable to ever log on to complete the punishment, making it an unnecessary symbolic gesture beyond all else.

 

[Franciscus]

Brief

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

SENTENCING


The Plaintiff brings forward the sentencing factors outlined within the Criminal Code Act for the requested penalty of, Originally 300 Penalty Units and 75 Minutes of Imprisonment for 5 counts of Weapon of Mass Destruction Trafficking, Having only been found guilty of 3 counts, contrary to the recommendation. The Plaintiff hereby proposes the new recommendation, 200 Penalty Units [20 Thousand Redmont Dollars] with no Imprisonment charge. These recommendations are found upon the sentencing principles within the CCA, listed as:

The Plaintiff will now break down each offense, and levy an explanation as to how to reach the same conclusion as we have in this reduced sentencing from the listed maximum of 300 Penalty Units

Nature and Seriousness of the Offence
SCR 20 [2025] uses specific factual context to evaluate seriousness for sentencing, The Trafficking of WMDs consisted of selling illicit items through Chestshops found within Redmont Jurisdiction, sold to Redmont citizens. Additionally, this act is a direct crime with a victim, arming people with Illegal weapons without the proper procedure as defined in the CCA. This weighs against the defendant in seriousness.

Intent and Conduct of the Offender

Evidence establishes that Chud_Inc accepted money in return for Weapons of Mass Destruction through the use of Chestshops, which are a multi-step process to set up, and do not allow for the accidental sale of an item not intentionally configured to be sold within the shop. As such, the conduct can be seen as deliberate, showing clear intent to commit the offense as charged.

Protection Of Community and Deterrence

SCR 20 [2025] Finds that "The Court must ensure that the sentence protects the community and deters future misconduct" Weapons of Mass Destruction are a direct danger to the community, and nothing enables the use of them more than distributing them. With them being used to destroy property within reveille, and disrupt the safety and sanity of daily Reveille life. This weighs against the defendant.

The Rest of Them

As for the rest of Part 1.5.2 of the Criminal Code Act, namely "any aggravating or mitigating circumstances" and "the offender's criminal history or lack thereof". The Plaintiff brings forward no relevant argument regarding any of these two sentencing applications in the case at hand. SCR 20 [2025] shows that in such cases, the court shall treat these factors as neutral. The Plaintiff concurs the same for this case.

Closure

With these factors in mind, the Plaintiff brings forward the recommended sentencing of 200 Penalty Units for 3 counts of Trafficking Weapons of Mass Destruction. A reduced penalty amount as not all sentencing factors have been filled, alongside with all imprisonment charges lifted, as the party liable to this sentencing is permanently deported, being unable to ever log on to complete the punishment, making it an unnecessary symbolic gesture beyond all else.

Thank you for your sentencing brief. Expect a full sentencing within the next 72 hours.

 

[Franciscus]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER - SENTENCING OF DEFENDANT

The Court has reviewed of the prosecution’s recommendation. No recommendation has come from the defense, for the proprietor of the defendant business has been permanently deported. As such, we provide our own sentencing analysis and issue a final order of sentencing here.

I. Discussion​

This Court examines the evidence-in-case and argument in light of the Criminal Code Act’s sentencing factors: “(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; and (e) the protection of the community and the deterrence of future offences “ (Commonwealth of Redmont v. ImzaKRD [2025] SCR 20). These factors, known as the Anthony factors following their substantive use in Commonwealth of Redmont v. Anthony_Org [2025] SCR 21, are analyzed by the Court as follows:

I.A On the Nature and Seriousness of the Offense​

The offense here is serious. At the time of the offense (as it is now) Weapon of Mass Destruction Trafficking constituted an indictable offense punishable by up to 100 penalty units and up to 60 minutes’ imprisonment per count. The Court has found the Defendant guilty of three completed sales via a chestshop: two mininukes sold to JustaDumpling on 7 January 2026, one mininuke sold to Roy405 on 8 January 2026, and five mininukes sold to NukeyPooky in December 2025. Repeated commercial trafficking in mininukes through a business entity is intrinsically grave and weighs substantially against the defendant. Offering these to sale to the general public via chestshops only adds to the gravity of the offense.

The Court does not, however, sentence as if every allegation in the complaint were proven. The two CzarKovalev-Taskings_ trafficking allegations resulted in acquittal, and the Court therefore assigns no sentencing weight to them. Likewise, the Court does not separately aggravate this sentence based on later property damage not proven in-case to have flowed from the three counts upon which the Defendant was actually convicted. The question of seriousness therefore supports a substantial sanction.

I.B On the Intent and Conduct of the Defendant​

The Defendant’s conduct was deliberate. The defendant's conduct was deliberate. The evidence established that CHUD.Inc accepted money in exchange for mininukes through a chestshop, and the Court agrees that such sales required intentional setup, stocking, and maintenance. This was not an accidental transfer, nor a single impulsive act; the repeated use of a chestshop to sell mininukes in the City of Reveille demonstrates planning, knowledge, and a willingness for CHUD.Inc to commit the crime brazenly.

The Court therefore finds purposeful and sustained conduct rather than negligence, mistake, or momentary impulsiveness. This factor weighs strongly against the defendant.

I.C On Aggravating or Mitigating Circumstances​

The Court identifies no aggravating circumstance separate and apart from the elements and factual features already accounted for above. The repeated nature of the conduct has already been considered under seriousness and intent, and the Court will not double-count it here. No mitigating submission has been made, no cooperation or remediation has been shown, and no other special circumstance appears on the record. This factor is therefore neutral as it pertains to miscellaneous aggrevating or mitigating circumstances.

I.D On the Defendant’s Criminal History​

No evidence has been presented to the Court regarding the Defendant’s prior criminal history. In line with established practice, where criminal history is neither proven nor argued, the Court treats this factor as neutral. It neither aggravates nor mitigates the sentence.

I.E On Deterring Future Crime and Protecting the Community​

The protection of the community and the deterrence of future offenses weigh meaningfully against the defendant. The trafficking of mininukes places extremely dangerous items into circulation and thereby heightens the risk to the public. General deterrence is important, as businesses and players alike must understand that the sale of WMDs will draw serious financial consequences.

A central sentencing principle here is that crime must not pay. Under Part I, Section 6(8)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code Act, the Court may order recovery of the proceeds of crime up to the full amount obtained from the offense. The proven sales yielded $1,600 (see: Compl., Exhibits P-04, P-05, and P-06), and disgorgement of that amount is necessary to strip the defendant of unlawful gain. Beyond disgorgement, a substantial direct fine is warranted to reflect the seriousness and repetition of the convicted conduct.

This factor weighs strongly against the defendant.

I.F On the Prosecution's Recommendation​

The Court declines to adopt the prosecution's full requested 200 penalty units as a direct fine because no miscellaneous aggravating circumstances or criminal history were proven, and because the Court will not increase sentence based on acquitted counts or unproven harms (e.g. "them being used to destroy property within reveille, and disrupt the safety and sanity of daily Reveille life", as claimed in the Prosecution's sentencing brief).

The Court also does not adopt the prosecution's reasoning that imprisonment would be merely symbolic. Under the old Legal Entity Act, "Jailtime on a legal entity shall be converted into a fine of 1 penalty unit per minute" (Old LEA, Section 4(4)(j)). As such, imprisonment remained legally available, and will be enforced in line with this principle; we decline to simplify this into a single direct fine.

II. Order of Sentencing​

Having reviewed the evidence-in-case and applied the above analysis, the Court therefore issues a sentence as follows:

• CHUD.Inc, having been convicted of three charges of Weapon of Mass Destruction Trafficking, is ordered to be fined $11,200 in direct financial penalties. This represents seven times the financial gain proven at trial. Additionally, CHUD.Inc is sentenced to 60 minutes in prison; in line with Old LEA, Section 4(4)(j), this prison time shall be converted to 60 penalty units, or $6,000 in fines representing jailtime. This creates a total of $17,200 in punitive fines.
• CHUD.Inc is ordered to be fined an additional $1,600, representing a disgorgement of criminal proceeds arising from the sale of 8 mininukes at a price of $200 that were proven by the prosecution at trial, consistent with Part 1, Section 6(8) of the Criminal Code Act.
• In line with Section 10(3) of the old Legal Entity Act, CzarKovalev shall be directly liable for the payment of all monetary penalties imposed inasmuch as he is the sole proprietor of CHUD.Inc.

So Ordered,
Hon. Judge Multiman155