5

In Money Heist, when the robbers ask the hostages if they would want their freedom or 1 million euros, some hostages choose freedom while others choose a million euros.

Group A: Choosing one million euros. B: Choosing freedom

The ones choosing a million euros are now also a part of the robbery, and the police would know because the people who are supposed to be freed will tell the police.

Why aren't group A not afraid that group B will tell the police, and that they'd be in trouble, too? How come none of the hostages from group A realize this?

| improve this question | | | | |
1

I haven't seen any of the third season yet (for multiple reasons). So Unless they mention something there, I have only knowledge of the first two netflix seasons.

With that said, knowing the professor there may be something more than just getting complacency...

The main obvious point of them separating the groups was one, to get extra labor, and two lock the others up who don't trust the robbers.

They offer to 'securely' get them the money, so it won't get taken by the police.

Nobody at this point is thinking about if they'll actually get the money, they're thinking about surviving the ordeal, and maybe they'll get money. These are the 'weaker' individuals the Professor is taking advantage of. I believe the saying goes something like 'more flies with honey'...

While the the other group gets taken away. At this point my memory is vague if they just get locked up or get used for a different labour task anyways...but its unimportant to the question.

The hostages are in a pretty messed up situation and are under a lot of stress.

The Professor is playing psychological warfare to get what he wants.

| improve this answer | | | | |
1

They were aware of the police but they were also in advantageous position. They can defend themselves on the court in many ways. (They may tell the judge that thieves blackmailed them with their family secretly or may tell thieves used psychological methods etc.) They was actually accepted the prison risk with the 1 million. 1 million is much money and it may be worth of jail time for them.

| improve this answer | | | | |
  • I don't know the Spanish law but I would be surprised if you can keep the money you caught (directly or indirectly) from a robbery. – Taladris Jan 15 at 13:52
  • @Taladris did you watch the series? Robbers guarantee them for taking 1 million after 1 month of the robbery. Who would know if they get the money or not. Also serial numbers are untracable and money is original. – K.Rejepow Jan 16 at 9:29
0

Morally or legally?

Morally, yes they are complicit as they effectively play along in order to steal their own share from the mint.

Legally, they are complicit if they truly chose freely, but it's not an open and shut court case.

  • The fact that the "freedom" group gets locked up gives the "money" group the perfect explanation: "we agreed just so we wouldn't be locked up" (and they you can claim you suspected you'd be locked up or never released anyway)
  • They can argue they still felt coerced by the weapons and earlier threats.
  • Stockholm syndrome is addressed in the show, and can be used as a reasonable explanation here as well.
  • Should the heist fail and the robbers be apprehended, the police would likely be very willing to trade immunity for testimony against the robbers.
| improve this answer | | | | |

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .