It's never that cut and clear. They're usually going out of their way to create some situation that temps people who don't normally do that type of crime to do it.
The quintessential example is a bait car with the keys in it. Every real car theif walks right on by and after a week of it sitting there they nab some teenager with a weed dealing prior and then throw the book. Yeah, he did steal it but he probably wouldn't have if he didn't walk by it sitting there with the keys in it for an f-ing week. Frequently when it's "real crime" they're going after informants are involved and that often muddies the waters a lot since the informant is usually trying to get a break on some other charge.
"I was tempted" is generally not considered a legal defense if you commit a crime. What difference does it make if the police created the particular temptation? If the person in your example stole a non-bait car where the owner was just careless about leaving their keys inside, that's still a crime right? How does the police creating a similar situation change the legal facts at all?
Entrapment debates are also a pretty good opportunity to apply the average person heuristic. Would the average person likely steal a car if they saw the keys sitting inside? Probably not, so someone who would do that is arguably predisposed to committing the crime if presented with the opportunity.
Now there's a very valid argument to be had about whether or not it's a good use of police time trying to catch lazy criminals (i.e. those that are willing to commit a crime but only when it's super easy). But that's a police policy discussion, not a legal defense. The criminals in those situations still deserve to be charged.
> They're usually going out of their way to create some situation that temps people who don't normally do that type of crime to do it
So you're just making up that they did that here because your gut says they usually do that?
> The quintessential example is a bait car with the keys in it. Every real car theif walks right on by and after a week of it sitting there they nab some teenager and then throw the book. Yeah, he did steal it but he probably wouldn't have if he didn't walk by it sitting there with the keys in it for an f-ing week.
We're looking at multiple individuals collaborating long-term saying they can "control the pump and dump" and do "inside trading easily." These are just scammers doing scam things.
The fact that you fall back to "these are bad guys doing bad things and in this particular case it wasn't entrapment" brings us around to the first point about juries.
That's a great way to misrepresent what I said, but no. You just have your own definition of what entrapment is and the only reason you're calling it entrapment is because of a gut feeling you have, which is an even worse argument. I'm questioning if you even read the article to be this obtuse about it.
You can see the direct quotes from guilty party. It's hardly a gray area like a teenager entering a car with the keys inside. It's adults telling uninvolved people that they intend to break the law, encouraging others to do it with them. It's pre-meditated over a span of many months. There is nothing an FBI agent could have done short of force them to say these things at gunpoint that would even approach entrapment.
Unless you're just asking for carte blanche crime because you're willfully ignorant of what entrapment is.
Look at the majority of the replies to your comment. Now imagine twelve of those people on a jury and a defendant who isn't mother teresa.
That's how.