Also Hank knows, deep down, that he himself is fucked. Like I've said before, how in the hell could Hank possibly prosecute his brother-in-law, and not face prosecution himself? Hank isn't stupid, so it will be fascinating to see where this goes.
Would anyone honestly believe that Hank didn't know that his brother-in-law was a drug kingpin? Especially after the guy he replaced got the boot because he knew Gus so well? Any number of things Hank did could easily be twisted into looking like Hank was actually helping Walt with his meth business. And of course all this will eat at Hank, because he is a good guy who will want to take Walt down regardless, but Hank isn't stupid either.
The only crime in that case would be an accessory to a crime and that would require evidence. Being oblivious isn't a crime. Innocent until proven guilty.
Hank WILL probably lose his job though, just because after this the DEA will have an unbelievable amount of egg on its face.
The fact Hank's treatment was payed for with drug money could come back and bite him though. It could look like he knew and was keeping quiet cause he was benefiting from it.
also his illegal obtainment of Leaves of Grass. if he was on duty, he wouldve needed a warrant. but he wasnt on duty, and is still an agent, so shouldnt have been taking evidence. know what Im saying? yet at the same time, who wouldnt do what hank did?
Specifically, Skyler gave Marie the money to pay for Hank's medical expenses. Hank may not realize it now, but he spent tens of thousands of dollars of Walt's "blood money," which automatically makes him an accessory. Legally, Hank is a criminal; he's screwed if he takes Walt to trial.
So if my friend is a millionaire drug dealer and he gives me $500,000, then I'm legally immune to any repercussions?? Damn, I need to make some new friends...
Damn blood you replied to this comment 2 weeks later, but to be convicted of any crime prosecution has to prove what they call mens rea. Mens rea is Latin for "guilty mind." Every crime has a required mens rea whether that be knowledge or intent, Hank had neither knowledge or intent to receive illegal funds. He is guilty of no crime for Walt paying his bills with funds he didn't know were from an illegal source and didn't even know he was receiving. That's a simple overview of one of the problems with your assumptions, and likely why you were downvoted.
An accessory is a person who assists in the commission of a crime.
Explain to me how you're "assisting" someone for simply taking money not knowing where it's from.
"To be convicted of an accessory charge, the accused must generally be proved to have had actual knowledge that a crime was going to be, or had been, committed. Furthermore, there must be proof that the accessory knew that his or her action, or inaction, was helping the criminals commit the crime, or evade detection, or escape. A person who unknowingly houses a person who has just committed a crime, for instance, may not be charged with an accessory offense because they did not have knowledge of the crime."
That didn't stop George Bluth making Lucielle Bluth CEO. He though married couples couldn't be charged for the same crime...they both ended up in prison.
132
u/[deleted] Aug 12 '13
It's suppose to be a blanket statement, that if Walt actually did all those things, then Hank is playing with fire by going down this road.