Lawsuit: Adjourned Commonwealth of Redmont v. vvirtue_ [2025] DCR 102

[Superwoops]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION


Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

vvirtue_
Defendant

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

PROSECUTING AUTHORITY REPORT
The Defendant sent RealImza, an Aventura Councillor, $10,000 in exchange for a street to be named after them. This amounts to bribery of an individual holding public office under CCA §II(5).

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

II. FACTS
1. On December 2nd, 2025, the Defendant sent the following in-game message in general: "imza, what will it take to get a vvirtue lane in aventura" (P-001)
2. Moments later, RealImza said "pay me 10K and I'll make sure you get a lane" (P-001)
3. The Defendant sent $10,000 to RealImza, followed by sending him a DM (/msg) saying "I'm ok if this was a scam btw". (P-001)
4. RealImza responded, asking "where do you want the lane at?" (P-001)
5. The Defendant stated "anywhere in aventura >: ) I'm not picky" to which RealImza replied "done!". (P-001)
6. The Defendant has since admitted to committing the crime of Bribery. (P-002)

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. One count of Bribery under CCA §II(5), committed when a person "offers, gives, solicits, or receives an item or service of value to influence an individual holding public office or serving in a legal capacity." In this case, the Defendant gave a sum of $10,000 to RealImza in hopes of him using his power in the Aventura Council to name a street after them. The Councillor in this case was influenced, as shown by his response, indicating an agreement to deliver the benefit that had been formed.

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. 100 Penalty Units and 10 minutes of imprisonment for one count of Bribery.

V. EVIDENCE

Spoiler: P-001

https://imgur.com/a/y2oSIC7

Spoiler: P-002

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 5th day of December 2025

 

[Vennefly]

Writ of Summons

@vvirtue_, is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Commonwealth of Redmont v. vvirtue_ [2025] DCR 102.

In the interest of more efficient Courtroom proceedings, the Court will permit responses to motions without prior Court permission. The deadline for such responses shall be 48 hours after the motion was filed.

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.

 

[Talion77]

Present, your Honour.

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

 

[Vennefly]

Present, your Honour.

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

View attachment 68425

You have 48 hours to present a Plea.

 

[vvirtue_]

Present, your honour.

 

[Talion77]

Plea

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
PLEA

Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

vvirtue_
Defendant

I. ENTRY OF PLEA
1. The Defendant pleads GUILTY to one count of Bribery.

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 5th day of December 2025

 

[Vennefly]

@Talion77 @Superwoops

The Court will create a sidebar to discuss the continuation of this case.

 

[Vennefly]

In the sidebar, both Parties agreed to move directly to the Verdict following Defendant's Guilty plea.

Court stands in RECESS pending Verdict.

 

[Vennefly]

Verdict

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT

I. The Prosecution's position
The Commonwealth alleges that the Defendant, vvirtue_, committed bribery by giving money (R$10,000) to Aventura Councillor ImzaKRD to influence him into using his power in the Aventura Council to name a street in Aventura after Defendant.

II. Defendant's position
Defendant pled guilty.

III. The Court's opinion
A. The elements of Bribery
As Defendant pled guilty in this case, the facts are not disputed between the Parties. The Court finds that, based on the evidence submitted by the Commonwealth, Defendant's guilty plea is sufficiently based in fact, and the Court will therefore accept Defendant's guilty plea.

The Court must subsequently evaluate whether the facts that Defendant pled guilty to amount to the crime of Bribery. Bribery is criminalised in Section 5 of Part II of the Criminal Code Act, and is defined as follows:

A person commits an offence if the person:
(a) offers, gives, solicits, or receives an item or service of value to influence an individual holding public office or serving in a legal capacity.

The Court must evaluate if each element of the statutory definition is satisfied in this case.

The Court finds, first, that money, including the R$10,000 at issue here, is inherently an “item or service of value”, as it represents a direct and universally recognised economic benefit. Thus, the transfer of such funds meets the statutory requirement that "an item or service of value" be offered or given.

Second, it is uncontested and further confirmed by administrative investigation by this Court that ImzaKRD is (or was, at the time) a Councillor for the Town of Aventura. This is an elected position and therefore satisfies the requirement of being "an individual holding public office".

Third, the Court must assess whether the payment was made to influence the officeholder. A guilty plea necessarily includes an admission of the intent accompanying the act. The messages between Defendant and the Councillor further confirm that the funds were provided for the purpose of affecting the Councillor’s exercise of official judgment. This admission satisfies the final element of the offence.

B. On capacity to provide the sought-after consideration
The Court, upon its own consideration, notes a potential question regarding whether bribery requires that the public official in fact possess the capacity to perform the act sought by the bribe-giver. As in this case, it is not clear that Councillor ImzaKRD in fact has any authority in naming streets. Having reflected on this, the Court finds that the offence, as defined, turns upon the corrupt intent to influence an individual who holds public office or serves in a legal capacity. Not upon the actual authority or ability of that individual to effect the contemplated result. The statutory language criminalises the offer or exchange of value “to influence” such an officeholder, it does not condition liability on the official’s ability lawfully or practically to fulfil the proposed “consideration".

The Court further observes that bribery is an integrity-based offence aimed at preventing the corruption of public functions at their inception. The harm arises from the attempt to distort official judgment, not from the successful procurement of an official act. Thus, the Court concludes that an officeholder’s inability to carry out the desired act, whether due to lack of authority, power, or jurisdiction, does not negate the essence of the offence. The crime is complete upon the intentional effort to exert improper influence over one who occupies a public position, irrespective of the practical possibility of securing the intended outcome.

Thus, the Court will find Defendant guilty of one count of Bribery.

C. Sentencing
The Court recognises that the amount and nature of the bribe, R$10,000 in cash, are serious. Bribery of public officials is an offence that ordinarily calls for firm punishment, as it threatens the integrity of government and public confidence in official decision-making. Even attempts to bribe must be treated with care. However, the Court must also assess the actual corruption risk created in this particular case.

Here, the Defendant attempted to influence an Aventura Councillor to name a street after him. This is a matter of limited public importance, carrying little more than novelty value for the Defendant. It is also doubtful that the Councillor had the power to accomplish such a change on his own. Any irregular attempt to alter a street name would likely have been noticed immediately and either blocked or reversed by other officials. For these reasons, the Court finds that the practical risk to the public and to the proper functioning of government was low. Furthermore, Defendant did not initiate the Bribery in this case. Instead, when the Defendant asked, in public, how he might go about getting a street named after them, the Councillor volunteered to arrange this for the sum of R$10,000.

The Court also gives weight to the Defendant’s cooperation. He turned himself in, accepted responsibility, and entered a guilty plea without delay. These actions merit meaningful consideration. In view of these mitigating factors, and given the limited seriousness of the actual harm threatened, the Court declines to impose the sentence requested by the prosecution. Instead, the Court finds that a penalty of a R$4,000 fine and ten minutes of imprisonment is a proportionate and appropriate sentence in this case.

IV. Verdict
WHEREFORE, the Court:

1. Finds Defendant GUILTY of one count of Bribery.
2. Sentences Defendant to a fine of R$4,000 and ten (10) minutes of imprisonment.

The Court thanks all Parties involved. Court hereby stands ADJOURNED.

SO ORDERED,
Magistrate Venne.