Someone actually came up to me and asked me if I heard about "the CEO of Bitcoin" being arrested 
lol
lolhahahahaha
Topic: CEO OF BITCOIN EXCHANGE ARRESTED - page 2. (Read 23718 times)
hahahahaha
Someone actually came up to me and asked me if I heard about "the CEO of Bitcoin" being arrested lol
lol 
Money Laundering is when you try to hide the origins of funds though:
Placement - the initial entry of the "dirty" cash or proceeds of crime into the financial system.
Layering - attempt to separate illicit funds from its source.
Integration - the money is returned to the launderer from what seem to be legitimate sources.
Placement - the initial entry of the "dirty" cash or proceeds of crime into the financial system.
Layering - attempt to separate illicit funds from its source.
Integration - the money is returned to the launderer from what seem to be legitimate sources.
isn't money laundering if you turn black money into white?
Shrem turned white money into a different form of white money which was then turned black
only if the SR illegal sellers would hand over their black BTC to someone, to turn them into cash, knowing it is black BTC, that would be money laundering imho
Shrem turned white money into a different form of white money which was then turned black
only if the SR illegal sellers would hand over their black BTC to someone, to turn them into cash, knowing it is black BTC, that would be money laundering imho
This is obvious and why the prosecutor is either completely retarded or just a lying sack of shit - most likely he's both.
isn't money laundering if you turn black money into white?
Shrem turned white money into a different form of white money which was then turned black
only if the SR illegal sellers would hand over their black BTC to someone, to turn them into cash, knowing it is black BTC, that would be money laundering imho
Shrem turned white money into a different form of white money which was then turned black
only if the SR illegal sellers would hand over their black BTC to someone, to turn them into cash, knowing it is black BTC, that would be money laundering imho
Money laundering means you don't properly report transactions. Conspiracy is when you work with someone to do that whether or not you actually perform the act yourself. Of course it is all accusations at this point.
isn't money laundering if you turn black money into white?
Shrem turned white money into a different form of white money which was then turned black
only if the SR illegal sellers would hand over their black BTC to someone, to turn them into cash, knowing it is black BTC, that would be money laundering imho
Shrem turned white money into a different form of white money which was then turned black
only if the SR illegal sellers would hand over their black BTC to someone, to turn them into cash, knowing it is black BTC, that would be money laundering imho
Interesting follow up article.
The coin prince: inside Bitcoin's first big money-laundering scandal
What last week’s arrest of Charlie Shrem means for the virtual currency
By Adrianne Jeffries and Russell Brandom
http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/4/5374172/the-coin-prince-charlie-shrem-bitinstant-bitcoin-money-laundering-scandal
The coin prince: inside Bitcoin's first big money-laundering scandal
What last week’s arrest of Charlie Shrem means for the virtual currency
By Adrianne Jeffries and Russell Brandom
http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/4/5374172/the-coin-prince-charlie-shrem-bitinstant-bitcoin-money-laundering-scandal
It is not interesting at all, it just shows some of the idiots that are involved with The Foundation and how they don't live in the real world. You also now have Vessenes and his bankruptcy issues. The judge is accusing him of trying to deceive the court. I tried to bid on the mining rigs at issue but they refuse to give me specs or a picture after I questioned some of their ridiculous claims that they made to the court.
The Foundation needs to be dissolved ASAP so legitimate companies can form a reasonable organization.
Aaron Swartz, Shrem, what do all these 'heroes' have in common?
Complete inability to deal with the situation when reality comes knocking at the door and you don't have a monitor and keyboard to hide behind.
Complete inability to deal with the situation when reality comes knocking at the door and you don't have a monitor and keyboard to hide behind.
Swartz didn't commit his "crimes" from behind a monitor and a keyboard, since you appear ignorant of basic facts about the case. He physically walked into MIT's labs and installed hardware and software to "liberate" the JSTOR archives.
Subsequently, JSTOR has, in fact, actually done exactly what Swartz wanted and made its archives public.
In other words, they basically ultimately agreed he was right.
It was the government that insisted on hounding him to death, despite there being no victim at all by that point.
So kiss my ass you ignoramus.
Interesting follow up article.
The coin prince: inside Bitcoin's first big money-laundering scandal
What last week’s arrest of Charlie Shrem means for the virtual currency
By Adrianne Jeffries and Russell Brandom
http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/4/5374172/the-coin-prince-charlie-shrem-bitinstant-bitcoin-money-laundering-scandal
The coin prince: inside Bitcoin's first big money-laundering scandal
What last week’s arrest of Charlie Shrem means for the virtual currency
By Adrianne Jeffries and Russell Brandom
http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/4/5374172/the-coin-prince-charlie-shrem-bitinstant-bitcoin-money-laundering-scandal
Aaron Swartz, Shrem, what do all these 'heroes' have in common?
Complete inability to deal with the situation when reality comes knocking at the door and you don't have a monitor and keyboard to hide behind.
Complete inability to deal with the situation when reality comes knocking at the door and you don't have a monitor and keyboard to hide behind.
He said, from behind a monitor and keyboard.
Quoted for truth.
Aaron Swartz, Shrem, what do all these 'heroes' have in common?
Complete inability to deal with the situation when reality comes knocking at the door and you don't have a monitor and keyboard to hide behind.
Complete inability to deal with the situation when reality comes knocking at the door and you don't have a monitor and keyboard to hide behind.
He said, from behind a monitor and keyboard.
Aaron Swartz, Shrem, what do all these 'heroes' have in common?
Complete inability to deal with the situation when reality comes knocking at the door and you don't have a monitor and keyboard to hide behind.
'Heroes' on the internet, impotent kids with no experience in reality.
Stop making 'heroes' and 'martyrs' of these fools and get your head out of your asses. Crypto needs someone with actual backbone, balls, and experience not to mention competence to carry itself through storms of regulations and public misconceptions, not a bunch of internet jackoff kids who can't even handle a lawsuit and fold like a bitch with spine of a jellyfish when they actually have to deal with people.
Fuck's sake DPR got nabbed thinking he could play internet drug boss and trying to off somebody. A 29 year old computer kid thought he could bite off more than he could chew. Now he is paying the price, getting fucked over when the people came to grab his ass while trying to arrange a hit sipping a fucking soy latte in starbucks.
Time's come to stop being kids and start acting like professionals.
Complete inability to deal with the situation when reality comes knocking at the door and you don't have a monitor and keyboard to hide behind.
'Heroes' on the internet, impotent kids with no experience in reality.
Stop making 'heroes' and 'martyrs' of these fools and get your head out of your asses. Crypto needs someone with actual backbone, balls, and experience not to mention competence to carry itself through storms of regulations and public misconceptions, not a bunch of internet jackoff kids who can't even handle a lawsuit and fold like a bitch with spine of a jellyfish when they actually have to deal with people.
Fuck's sake DPR got nabbed thinking he could play internet drug boss and trying to off somebody. A 29 year old computer kid thought he could bite off more than he could chew. Now he is paying the price, getting fucked over when the people came to grab his ass while trying to arrange a hit sipping a fucking soy latte in starbucks.
Time's come to stop being kids and start acting like professionals.
This reminds me a lot of the Aaron Swartz case. Another brilliant man being put away for something questionable. Yes it's breaking the law, but people will get drugs anyway, and it was their decision to use their money that way...and don't even get me started on the whole war on drugs..shit is just a giant money-generating operation for the US government and the prison "industry".
I'll have to disagree on that. Aaron Swartz was a fucking hero.
+1
Don't know anything about Shrem but seldom a day passes I don't think of Aaron.
This reminds me a lot of the Aaron Swartz case. Another brilliant man being put away for something questionable. Yes it's breaking the law, but people will get drugs anyway, and it was their decision to use their money that way...and don't even get me started on the whole war on drugs..shit is just a giant money-generating operation for the US government and the prison "industry".
I'll have to disagree on that. Aaron Swartz was a fucking hero.
Shrem is at best a goddamn jackoff who ran a shady business that made bogus claims, called itself BitInstant despite often taking days to process transactions, and had no interest but making money for himself.
He does not deserve to be anywhere in the same sentence as Aaron Swartz.
This reminds me a lot of the Aaron Swartz case. Another brilliant man being put away for something questionable. Yes it's breaking the law, but people will get drugs anyway, and it was their decision to use their money that way...and don't even get me started on the whole war on drugs..shit is just a giant money-generating operation for the US government and the prison "industry".
This doesn't make sense. How would it be proven the owners "knew" it was going to the silk road and not other places?
Bharara must know that this case is about peanuts; $1M? Ridiculous. Even if the wins the case its a joke; his other cases were 1000 times larger or more. Who is behind him, forcing him to destroy a young entrepreneurs life? I am 100% sure this is only happening because it is about BTC.
Yep, and as I have pointed out probably in this thread before, Bharara generally goes after cases where the numbers concerned are billions, not millions. You frankly would not see a case like this against a bank that did the same thing for the same amount of money.
This case is about making examples of people. It's about putting heads on pikes.
Justice need not apply.
Moreover, having Shrem himself bought something on SR, he can't say he was not aware of SR main interest...
Not sure if it makes sense, this is just my opinion but I'm looking forward to reading your comments..
Not sure if it makes sense, this is just my opinion but I'm looking forward to reading your comments..
That's actually a seemingly strong argument, to the point you've seen it over and over again in news stories, i.e. Shrem bought pot brownies from Silk Road, so he must have known it was nothing but a crime operation.
If this is actually their strongest argument, though, it's really weak. It's sort of like arguing that because the co-owner of a mall once scored weed at the food court there, this is proof he knew the mall itself was actually just a drug operation in disguise. It looks good on paper the first time you see it, but not if you actually think about it much.
I don't see enough to convict on money laundering just because the dude scored some pot brownies. I can even see some juries getting pissed off at having their time wasted on a case like this where the prosecution's lead argument is basically bullshit.
Bharara must know that this case is about peanuts; $1M? Ridiculous. Even if the wins the case its a joke; his other cases were 1000 times larger or more. Who is behind him, forcing him to destroy a young entrepreneurs life? I am 100% sure this is only happening because it is about BTC.
If it was about USD no one would give a damn.
It's all about priorities and right now a mouse is given priorities over a herd of elephants.
If it was about USD no one would give a damn.
It's all about priorities and right now a mouse is given priorities over a herd of elephants.
The intent to launder money is not at all clear, though. Money laundering is a specific intent offense. While that need not necessarily be as specific as, say, intent to launder the proceeds of cocaine sales by Pablo Escobar to fund terrorists, just to pick a glaring example, it certainly has to be more specific than just an intention to collect fees on processing transactions that seem a little fishy.
Yeah. Money laundering is attempting to disguise the unlawful origin of money. At most, Shrem knew that some of the money would likely be used to buy drugs. There wasn't evidence that it had an illicit origin.One of the US AML nuances says, not literally: the act of sending money (monetary instrument or funds) outside the US border to promote a crime IS money laundering. I don't agree at all with this, but as you can see, according to the Law, ML is much more than what one usually thinks. And in that case, it's not required for the money to be a proceed of a crime.. nonsense, but that's the way it is.
What they try to demonstrate in the indictment is that he knew the (monetary instrument or funds) was going to be used to promote a crime (buying drugs in SR). Interesting to understand if bitcoins can qualify, according to laws, as monetary instrument or funds.
You are correct that 18 USC 1956(a)(2)(A) does not have the "proceeds of unlawful activity" limitation. Instead it is "with the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity".
Selling bitcoins in the US would not be illegal under section 1956(a)(2)(A). The basis of the charge is that dollars were sent to MtGox, which is outside the US.
The question is, did Shrem or Faiella intend to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity?
The meaning of "promote" here is not entirely clear, and the Supreme Court seemed divided on the issue in US v Santos. The justices generally believed that investment in growing the unlawful business is promotion, but there was some dispute over whether this included paying ordinary business expenses. Pehaps there are other cases that I am unaware of that have addressed this issue, but Shrem and Faiella weren't in the business of selling drugs. To claim that they were "carrying on" unlawful activity merely because some of their customers did, seems a bit of a stretch.
One interesting case is United States v. Monroe, 943 F.2d 1007 (9th Cir. 1991). Monroe and McCabe arranged for money to be sent to Hong Kong to buy marijuana, and were charged with violating section 1956(a)(2)(A). However the money was actually sent by a DEA agent, who gave it to McCabe in Hong Kong. Apparently the DEA thought this was okay, since the DEA agent didn't intend to buy marijuana. If it's legal for the DEA to transfer money knowing that the recipient intends to buy drugs, why not for Shrem?
That last question is rhetorical? Not sure but controlled delivery is standard procedure for DEA. They buy drugs, they smuggle them into the country too. There is some evidence the Lockerbie bombing was a controlled delivery gone bad, also there was a pretty well documented affair in Baltimore where it turned out just about all the heroin in the city was brought in through controlled delivery, then distributed through lower level drug dealer channels. The DEA had inadvertently(?) become the kingpins, similar to Fast and Furious mentality but with drugs.
Then there' is Michael Ruppert and the CIA/Crack dealing, which also happened. And the recent revelations that the DEA has been in cahoots with the Sinaloa for like the last 10 years... add HSBC, well it's honestly embarrassing that the public cannot seem to figure out that drug enforcement and drug dealing are the same organization and they are footing the bill for all of it.
Jump to: