An Ethical And Legal Question? Do YOU know the Answer?

Recently i heard something very troubling. Someone secretly (will call him "Greg") paid an HIV positive person (will call her "Jane") to have unprotected sex with one of Greg's enemies (will call him "John"). John had did some terrible things to Greg when he was young and had no idea that Greg had set him up for revenge. He met Jane 'randomly' in a bar and was quickly turned on by Jane's advances . Jane knew she was HIV positive and desperately needed the money, so she told John that she was clean and that she was on the pill. Later that night John and Jane had unprotected sexual intercourse, and John contracted HIV. My question is, who is at fault? Are Greg's actions illegal in a court of law? is it biological warfare? Is Jane's actions illegal as well? Although Jane was paid by Greg, she did not have sex with him, so would it be prostitution or something on the lines of porn actress? And John? Is he guilty for being weak minded and for the cruel actions he committed against Greg?

Simply put Greg and Jane entered into a conspiracy to commit battery (any harmful or offensive touching) and given the fatal nature of HIV possibly attempted murder. Even though Jane is the one who carried out the criminal act, Greg is guilty of all the crimes committed in furtherance of the conspiracy via the Pinkerton rule. Even though John had consented to the sex, a person cannot legally consent to serious bodily injury. Greg and Jane will both be doing time in the slam. John has no criminal liability, and since the acts against Greg occurred when they are young any civil liabilty will likely have exceeded the typical to year statute of limitations.

Greg and Jane is both at fault

Greg's actions are illegal (criminal).

No, it is not biological warfare.

Jane's action is illegal (criminal).

Prostitution is not illegal in Australia, so don't know the answer in your situation (assuming you're american)

John is not guilty for having consensual sex with Jane.

Can't tell you whether he is guilty for pther cruel actions he committed against Greg because you didn't say what they were.

John has not.

It's Greg's fault, and Jane was his accomplice. Technically that is considered attempted murder and mild biological warfare because they intentionally infected John with an infectious agent that will kill him eventually. They're both committing the crime.

John on the other hand, well I don't pity him.......Why should I? It was his stupid mistake to sleep with her.