(Double post)
That you reread the Code? 
Because some of your interpretations are... questionable. Marched? "Ill gotten"?! Court wizards?? They're paying the noble, not working for him! 
As has been pointed out before, it's not the interfering that matters - not in the least. Every time a mage buys some bread, every time they choose one inn over another, every time they tip heavily or use a spell to overcome hesitancy due to The Gift, they're "interfering in the affairs of mundanes" to one extent or another, and an operating covenant of magi can't help but do that.
A mage can buy a herd of horses from a noble (expensive!), they can negotiate for rights to land from a noble, a covenant can buy that land outright - this is no different. In fact, it's less than typical, because they can't be tracked down to raise any suspicions. They're covered, 99.99%, unless something unexpected (and unmentioned above) occurs/occurred.
The Code gets broken in the second part of that section, when, to paraphrase DW's chorus, "somebody cares" - when a mage "thereby brings ruin upon my sodales", when at least one member of the Hermetic Order can say "I suffered ruin because of that", in one way or another, to one degree or another. Or could reasonably be expected to suffer - that seems to be read in to the interpretation.
Who has suffered in this case? Any mage of the OoH? No??????? Case dismissed. (And your Quaesitores license hereby revoked for wasting the Tribunal's time!)
As stated above, there was no Hermetic backlash, zero. And unless there is... (say it with us)... nobody cares. Or, at least, nobody at Tribunal has anything but pretense if they wanted to press the issue.
As with so many aspects of AM, unless you're playing in Stonehenge Tribunal, all this ruling does is open the door for the SG's imagination - either interpretation, or another, is perfectly supported. Since with few exceptions the "busiest" cities have a population of 10,000 or less, it wouldn't be hard for a similar abuse to happen locally, or even regionally.
Ah, found at least part of the Covenants book regarding wealth and inflation.
P. 61, sidebar: "The Riches That Are Rightfully Mine (A ritual that makes ten cubic feet of silver pennies)
"...A copy of this spell exists in the Great Library of Durenmar, but it is infamous for causing inflationary troubles. Given the recent rulings in many Tribunals, a covenant of ten magi would only be permitted to distribute 20 pounds of such silver per year, so that it would take 100 years to exhaust the silver created by even as single casting of the spell."
I think that may have been the line that made me decide to extend the Stonehenge ruling vis a vis inflation to Normandy, as the income of a covenant seemed like a potentially interesting source of stories.
Vrylakos
You failed to see the point i was making, that in a "busy" area with a lot of population centers and plenty of trade(like you would very likely find in many parts of Spain or Italy for example), the inflational effect will be far less severe because there is already plenty of coins in circulation, and in the end not calamitous enough to cause involvement of a tribunal. Because they wont waste their time just because a local economy went a little too hot. For a tribunal to get involved it needs to go really disastrous. Or that the "accused" has serious political opposition or enmity there.
I was just thinking that the threads on issues brought up at Tribunal are amongst my favourite on this boards and anywhere else. Certainly these types of debate are great to have in a saga. It's much like sitting in the forum, listening to the back and forth and the various positions, shorn of their local political baggage to become more general stances on the future of the Order.
Curiously though, noone has yet brought up the fact that the covenant siding against the Albigensian Crusade are Diedne sympathisers. Why else would they stand against an Holy War? ::grins::
That is because we didn't know it. Is Vrylakos someone that deserves a nice POF before dinner time? 
Xavi goes to the vauls to get some ignem vis
Xavi
I think it makes for a better story if one can argue for a range of positions with regard to applying the Code to a particular case. Many people speak of political factors being important as to who can get away with what, but rarely do we see cogent legal arguments on two sides of an issue. And when someone does suggest an atypical view, and the responses are remarks like "you should reread the Code," I don't feel that enriches anyone's game.
Andrew, your post broke the code in several parts and disregarded the RAW on the ciode in several others. This is what people was pointing out. 
Xavi
No, you fail to see that I understood your point perfectly, but dismissed it as arbitrary. Exactly as arbitrary as saying that such an action would cause inflation, but still arbitrary. Both have a basis in economics, and neither has a monopoly on logic or necessary cause-and-effect.
"Far less severe" doesn't mean "it can't happen", or that it won't still be actionable. Few here know how much impact that much gold would have, or wouldn't. To say that "I'm right, therefore everyone else is wrong" is exactly why I gave up on your "Dark Ages" thread.
No, but that re-reading might enrich your game.
Every accusation and conclusion you made (and it was extreme - marchings, stripping of all vis, etc etc) was right out of left field. Half of it was based on the premise that the Code says that magi can't interfere with mundanes - which is patently untrue at face value, and which a cursory reading would show - which is what struck me (and everyone?) here as so odd.
Courtroom politics and different Tribunal interpretations of the Code are fine, but start with the same Code everyone else is reading - I (and several others) have no idea what you were basing 95% of your "crimes" on. Magi buy some obscure land rights from a noble, exactly the same as any mundane would, so now they're court magicians, without ever offering or casting a spell for this joker? Sorry, but... wtf? 
(If you want to go over what I feel are the flaws in your "interpretation" of the Code one point at a time, do it via mail, not here - that would be dull and a derailer.)
I'm staying in the discussion mostly for the sake of helping Vrylakos's game, in case he wants to use any of my ideas for a hard-line NPC in his game. I do not enjoy arguing for arguments' sake. If you want to continue the discussion, please ask yourself what kind of "community" you want this to be, and choose your tone accordingly.
In Houses of Hermes: True Lineages (serf's parma) is explained the principle of "forfeit immunity." Basically, the Code does not protect someone who's breaking it. Now since forfeit immunity applies to magi, let's entertain the question of why should it not apply to mundanes? Seriously. There is no precedent for that in canon as far as I know, but there is nothing that definitely says it's out of the question, either.
Let's suppose for the sake of argument that we have a clear breach of the Code here (we are very far from agreement on this but bear with me). If you have a mundane who benefited from a breach of the Code, then do you expect the Order to let him get away with it scot-free? Are you kidding me? This mundane was party to a Hermetic crime. Why on earth would the Order not punish him? We'd just be encouraging more mundanes to conspire with magi to make illegal deals. And we'd be encouraging other magi (I am looking at you, House Jerbiton -- and Tytalus) to meddle in mundane affairs because whether the magus gets punished or not, the mundane interference has lasting effects. Are you taking the position that we don't have the right to punish this noble? I will not let some upstart count play us for a pack of fools. Are you taking the position that magi who break the Code are outside it, but mundanes who collude with them are still protected by it? Are you saying that fixing this mess is beyond our power? My sodales, I appeal to your sense of justice, to your very dignity. How can we let this situation stand?
That's the thinking behind why I think the noble needs a smackdown. We are way outside what is covered by canon here IMO (if there is a precedent then I do ask someone to bring it up). I do think it makes for a better story and that's why I'm running with it. 
The big question is whether this deal is mundane interference. I think it is, but it depends totally on how that works in your Saga.
Because the order of hermes has no jurisdiction at all on mundanes. They do not have the least right to punish a mundane for a hermetic crime. Only mages can do hermetic crimes, not mundanes since you need to have sworn the code of hermes for it to be the binding tyo you in the least. If a mundane is bringing ruin on a covenant it is not a hermetc crime, just a screwed up covenant. The mundane might suffer a mysterious and terrible accident without you declaring a wizard's war on him as well, and nobody will prosecute you for it: this is not covered by the code at all.
The order has to live with the consequence and punish THEIR members, not third parties. At most.
To me it is still extremely unclear that there is the LEAST code breach, adn I would be extremely wary of having been a PERIPHERAL code breach. No marches for me, sorry Amnd for me that is A GOOD THING (tm) since a legal enemy is much better than one that is easily countered in a courtroom by pointing a finger at it. You'll have to do better to twart them and get the upper hand
Xavi
Hi,
So, at this point, the visconte doesn't know where the gold has come from, and all the nobility in the area haven't even the slightest idea that the gold has been magically created. Perhaps not even the visconte himself realizes that his gold comes from magi of the OoH.
A nice and clean operation.
There's nothing in the Code against paying a mundane for access to land and resources. Many covenants pay rents and fees of various kinds. So far, it looks like the rivals have gotten away with it, a fine example of how to get what you need without interfering in mundane affairs and bringing ruin on your sodalis.
But.....
Nicely done! I don't even think there's a case. So far, the rivals haven't even hinted to the visconte to maybe put some pressure on those other suspicious scholars there. This is examplary behavior.
Who is going to tell him the full details? He doesn't seem to know much about it yet.
Depends on how many magi you can get to vote against them. 
/2942984329479283748293409211230
Well.... that's up to you! I think the rival covenant probably has the ability to kibosh this whole thing quite nicely, especially if they have generously let some of their vis find their way into the right hands. Of course, if other covenants are nervous when they discover just how much vis this covenant has collected, they might rule against them anyway.
The Normandy Tribunal (is this Normandy? Provencal?) being what it is, I hardly expect this one to be won or lost on the merits. But if it were, unless this Tribunal has an anti-gold law and the player magi can demonstrate that the rivals caused a problem (good luck with that), I think the rivals win handily.
Anyway,
Ken
I don't recall reading that anywhere. You mean the mundanes are above us? 
Legally? Surely enough.
The fact that the magi have the power to disregard the law and kill their own grogs, for example, does not mean that they are above the law. Covenants can easily be accused of breaking the king's law if they are not careful, and THAT can be levied against them about messing with mundanes AND bring ruin on their sodales if the high officials of the realm start prossecuting other covenants. Careful with what you suggest Mundane legality can come back to bite most covenants in the psoterior if they are not careful. Something that is not a hermetic crime can easily be a mundane (and canon law) crime. The code is not all covering, but it certasinly covers stuff like "whipping out a mundane lord magically" because he benefited from your gold, that he was unaware was magic or connected with the Order at all.
Xavi
Was any of this vis rights the covenant paid the noble for vis claimed by other covenants? Especially if the vis sources crossed the border of Tribunals you could make a story out of that investigation.
This is indeed the Normandy Tribunal, though close the the southern extremes of the Tribunal - on the Dordogne, a day or two east of Bergerac.
The players do not know all of the wrinkles, necessarily. They think they've got Atsingani "by their familiars", so to speak.
The local populace generally are aware that the visconte's elder brother turned his back on the family, leaving the visconte to step forth as heir. Within the last few years, it has become known (partly due to the elder brother casting magic to defend his family castle from southern attack) that he is a wizard. The people of Vezay, who are only 4 hours from the covenant, know the folk who live with the elder wizard-brother are also wizards.
NEW WRINKLES AS OF LAST GAME:
[Some context] Due to the disappearance of the Holy Oil used to anoint the Kings of France, there is currently a simmering war between the Capetians and Plantagenets. Visconte Raymond, the noble who is being given gold by Covenant A, has rebelled against the Duke of Aquitaine/King of England, Henry III and sworn allegiance to the un-Anointed King of France, Louis VIII - who is still alive in our saga due to a few differences in history that have occurred (this will last for a few more years, until it becomes good for the story for him to die).
The covenant lies in a labyrinth beneath a small castle, a grant from Eleanor of Aquitaine to a certain noble family who save her from assassination (a companion character). This companion, a knight long absent on crusade and accursed for sinning in the Temple of the Mount, was married just prior to leaving for the Holy Land to a beautiful woman of Italian nobility. While he was gone, and assumed dead, she learned the arts of magic and ran the affairs of the castle as best she could with the aid of a perceptive steward.
AS OF LAST GAME, the Count of Poitiers arrived with a small group of men. All but two of the covenant's magi are on a journey to the East, to seek the phoenix and achieve various other aims. He called upon the companion knight to aid his lord, King Henry, in overthrowing the Visconte Raymond, his distant neighbor and traitor to their liegelord. The companion knight noted he had little money (as most of it had gone into supporting the wizards, who had managed to add more members to the covenant without increasing revenue) and no men-at-arms apart from the few who guarded his castle. The Count of Poitiers, upset by this laggardly state of affairs, then told the companion knight that the army of King Henry would be using the castle as a staging point for assaulting the rebel visconte's lands.
At present, the troops of various vassals of Duke Henry are garrisoning the castle as preparations for battle and siege are being made. Potentially, depending on the next game, there may be a battle wherein the visconte seizes the covenant's castle - though he does indeed know wizards live there. He might try and arrange a "peaceful conquest" whereby the gates are thrown open so that his his wizard brother and his sodales are not harmed. A lot of this depends on what approach the players take. The Terram Master was dispatched to get a sample of the magically created gold from his brother the visconte so that a sigil can be identified.
How that meeting goes may change the tenor of the next step in this storyline and the ensuing battle.
This may become delightfully messy, depending on how they choose to deal with him and the ensuing large scale combat. Man, I wish Lords of Men was out!
SO, in any case, it may be that the covenant that suffers and thus proves the case could be the player's own, though that might open up a whole different set of legal issues about marriage to mundane nobility, or the player covenant allowing this situation to develop as they too aided the visconte in the past with magic far more openly than Covenant A when the visconte's wizard brother sealed the open gates of his brother's castle with a stone wall while it was under attack.
Well, clearly I disagree that the noble is party to any Hermetic crime at all. Nevertheless, the fact remains that a mundane noble cannot commit an Hermetic crime anyway because an Hermetic crime is an event which results from breaking the Oath and the mundane has not sworn the Oath. In addition, the nobles benefits are secondary and tertiary results of the legal actions of the magi. Rather than colluding with a magus to bring down the king, the noble is taking advantage of circumstances generated by the magi to strengthen his own hand and lands.
How would you react for the following situation. A noble has lands near a faerie forest. His serfs tithe 30% of their crops to the faeries, as well as certain yearly rites, to stop the faeries stealing their children. The magi, learning of this and that there is a powerful vis source in the forest, challenge the faerie lord to a duel and win, forcing him to stop his folk's attacks upon the peasantry and give them access to the vis. As a secondary effect, the lord becomes much wealthier now he no longer needs to bribe the church to turn a blind eye and his crop revenues improve. He begins to rebel against the king.
Finally, if magi are smacking down a noble, they are of necessity becoming involved in mundane politics at an high level. Because high levels of society are always under more scrutiny than the workers, this makes it more likely that the Hermetic influence will be noticed. That is exactly what the Oath forbids, because nobles who feel threatened are dangerous.
I suggest that the covenant "discover" their fellow's crimes, declare Wizard's War upon him and go cap in hand to the Tribunal and beg for mercy. They may escape with the clothes upon their backs.
By exactly what temporal authority do you expect mages to have any power over mundanes? The order has no official place in society and it is exactly this line of thinking you are flirting with that gets covenants destroyed for pissing around in temporal affairs. THAT is a CRIME. That is the kind of thing that gets Bishop princes to raise armies against wizards and burn their homes to the ground.
Your assumption that because the cannon does not deny authority then we can assume there is some. That as a basis for any line of argument is very weak indeed.
I feel pretty confident if a King, prince or other temporal force had extended royal perogative to the order that would deserve a mention.
Not having sworn an oath to the order, the order has no jurisdiction over them.
Thats one of few viewpoints i can think of that really could make for a case. At least if its a source that is registered as belonging to someone else.