zlacker

>>Geeket+(OP)
I don't think this justifies his treatment, but the article starts off by essentially saying this man did nothing wrong and was forced into signing a confession without a lawyer present in a language he can't understand. It's not until you get more than a third of the way into the article that they point out he was convicted in a civil case brought by the same complainant in British courts of committing financial fraud against the Dubai bank.

His treatment is unacceptable, the sentence is outrageous (and counterproductive), but fundamentally this is why you don't get into business with and especially don't defraud petty dictators in unstable regions of the world. If this had been in his place of birth, he would have been murdered rather than imprisoned, and I imagine he should be well aware of this given his upbringing and career history.

>>tristo+MK
"he was convicted in british courts" is exactly the wrong kind of reasoning here. Sure, this guy probably did it, but for every person who probably did it there are likely 9 or even 99 innocent people who spend months rotting in jail and being abused - or in the US, dying in jail - awaiting a fair trial because we tolerate violations of law and mistreatment of prisoners.

"he would have been murdered rather than imprisoned" is also not especially comforting considering just how badly one can be scarred by imprisonment, interrogation, etc.

>>keving+PM
To be clear, I don't think this is okay. My comment is more pointing out that the article goes out of its way to act as if he's innocent only to later reveal he was actually convicted of the crime by a more trustworthy entity. It's a criticism of the article, not a justification of the treatment of this individual.

It's clear that debtor's prison, en total, is unethical. It's also illegal in most of the Western world. And for cases where someone is imprisoned for any crime, the sentence should match the crime, and the treatment within prison should be humane.

My latter commentary is about the risk factors that this person knowingly took on doing business in that region. I personally, having traveled extensively, would never engage in business in the Middle East because I understand the nebulous way debt is treated in the region. Usury is illegal under Islamic law, and generally speaking debt is only acceptable in the context of direct personal relationships, which means any dispute about it is taken as a personal insult. Taking on a debt from the finance minister and member of the royal family of a theocratic dictatorship is not a good life decision.