Charlie Shrem Pleads Guilty - What do you think? - page 5.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4214

Merit: 4458

Quote from: Bill Bisco on September 01, 2014, 03:18:34 PM

I must admit I'm disappointed with you Charlie. If you are truly innocent then you must not plead guilty to *ANY* charges that you did not commit. We cannot permit the Federal Mafia to simply threaten everyone into submission. This sets a very bad precedent for the future and other Bitcoin users.

guess u dont know how the system works..

if they have proof of communications btween the two parties then that alone is enough for 'conspiracy". then theres proof of FIAT bank transfers.

these days saying "i didnt know" is not enough. thats what government are trying to push, for people to learn everyones life story before moving money to be 100% sure its not used for illegal activity.

so if there was even the smallest indication shrem knew any illicit possible uses of the funds, then pleading innocent wont help. he would have to have lots of documents and proof of no knowledge, which is harder to prove.

so why plead innocent if they have any indication that is provable against him, meaning a lengthier sentance due to basically lying under oath.. or plead guilty and get a light sentance for the things he did actually do and maybe get a deal to have other charges he didnt do thrown out, due to him being honest and above board

foulowl

newbie

Activity: 5

Merit: 0

I hope this ends well for Charlie Shrem. I really like him too and a technicality should not destroy someones reputation.

TheButterZone

legendary

Activity: 3010

Merit: 1031

RIP Mommy

1) There has never been a rule on Silk Road that it was only to be used for illegal exchanges
2) Even if there were such a rule, mala prohibita of human rights (like self-harm without harming others) is indefensible bullshit

QuestionAuthority

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1393

You lead and I'll watch you walk away.

Quote from: jbreher on September 01, 2014, 02:35:58 PM

Quote from: QuestionAuthority on September 01, 2014, 01:07:26 AM

http://www.coinfinance.com/news/charlie-shrem-pleads-guilty

I know all of you are aware of this news already. I'm interested in what you think about it?

Well, I don't think all the facts have been publicly exposed. However, from what has been made available, it sounds as if Mr. Shrem has indeed engaged in what the state terms 'money laundering'.

More importantly, I find the entire doctrine of 'money laundering' being a crime to be an abhorrent miscarriage of justice. If I were to be on the jury for this case (as if), this latter point would dominate my balloting.

I also find the established practice of prosecutors 'throwing the book' at the accused, in the expectation of being able to get the accused to self-incriminate to a lesser charge to be yet another abhorrent miscarriage of justice.

Though I certainly do not fault Mr. Shrem for acquiescing to what he felt was the best of the shitty array of available options.

I think that an intelligent realistic perspective. Yes, he was guilty of breaking an unjust law designed to allow the government to attack anyone they disagree with indiscriminately. I don't think anyone would fault him for protecting himself. There aren't many Gandhi's out there protecting the greater good. That's what makes them special. I seriously doubt even if he fought the complaint any good would come out of it. I would have done the same thing.

The government passed a bad law - prohibition. They created an underworld of people willing to break that law. Illegal alcohol led to other illegal activities like gambling, prostitution, murder, bribery and general rampant violence. During that time the police murdered as many people as the criminals they were fighting. The government created a criminal element that survived long beyond the prohibition era. Bad laws turn good people into criminals. Homeland security can currently hold U.S. citizens detained on U.S. soil in military custody for an indefinite detention period without trial. Bad laws are stacking up here faster than we can track them.

Ron~Popeil

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 250

Quote from: Bill Bisco on September 01, 2014, 03:21:11 PM

Quote from: Ron~Popeil on September 01, 2014, 03:15:20 PM

It is easy to say other people should martyr themselves for the cause. It is mach more difficult to be so idealistic when it is your freedom and livelihood in question. I think he did the right thing for himself and his family. There is no shame in that.

It easier to say such things when your own life is not on the line; however, it is no less true but every time someone pleads guilty to a crime they did not commit the world dies a little.

That is the sad truth of the world we live in. My grandfather used to tell me to pick my battles and to make sure they are worth fighting. This kind of battle just isn't worth the risk. I understand and agree with your stance on this in principle, but losing your loved ones and freedom for what could be decades is a really high price to pay.

Marlo Stanfield

sr. member

Activity: 490

Merit: 280

Well, I think he very likely committed a "crime" according to US law. And given the offer of a deal like this, what other choice could he have made realistically? These aren't the type of laws that the public are really going to care about or feel that they are unjust, so any type of protest by him would likely end up failing.

Bill Bisco

member

Activity: 109

Merit: 10

Quote from: Ron~Popeil on September 01, 2014, 03:15:20 PM

It is easy to say other people should martyr themselves for the cause. It is mach more difficult to be so idealistic when it is your freedom and livelihood in question. I think he did the right thing for himself and his family. There is no shame in that.

It is easier to say such things when your own life is not on the line; however, it is no less true that every time someone pleads guilty to a crime they did not commit the world dies a little.

Bill Bisco

member

Activity: 109

Merit: 10

I must admit I'm disappointed with you Charlie. If you are truly innocent then you must not plead guilty to *ANY* charges that you did not commit. We cannot permit the Federal Mafia to simply threaten everyone into submission. This sets a very bad precedent for the future and other Bitcoin users.

Ron~Popeil

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 250

It is easy to say other people should martyr themselves for the cause. It is mach more difficult to be so idealistic when it is your freedom and livelihood in question. I think he did the right thing for himself and his family. There is no shame in that.

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3024

Merit: 1640

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: QuestionAuthority on September 01, 2014, 01:07:26 AM

http://www.coinfinance.com/news/charlie-shrem-pleads-guilty

I know all of you are aware of this news already. I'm interested in what you think about it?

Well, I don't think all the facts have been publicly exposed. However, from what has been made available, it sounds as if Mr. Shrem has indeed engaged in what the state terms 'money laundering'.

More importantly, I find the entire doctrine of 'money laundering' being a crime to be an abhorrent miscarriage of justice. If I were to be on the jury for this case (as if), this latter point would dominate my balloting.

I also find the established practice of prosecutors 'throwing the book' at the accused, in the expectation of being able to get the accused to self-incriminate to a lesser charge to be yet another abhorrent miscarriage of justice.

Though I certainly do not fault Mr. Shrem for acquiescing to what he felt was the best of the shitty array of available options.

BIGbangTheory

member

Activity: 83

Merit: 10

Quote from: oceans on September 01, 2014, 08:48:21 AM

I think anyone in this kind of situation would have taken any chance they had to get themselves a lighter sentence even if it meant pleading guilty. It seems this was the case and I know many of us if put into the same situation would have taken the same decision.

The government (both federal and state) tends to charge people with very serious crimes with harsh potential punishments and then offer a plea deal in which they get a very minor sentence.

It almost always makes sense to plead guilty unless you can prove your innocence as it is too much of a gamble to go to trial.

Bit_Happy

legendary

Activity: 2114

Merit: 1040

A Great Time to Start Something!

Charlie made the only sensible choice, hopefully his new business will be a lasting success.

culexevilman

legendary

Activity: 1064

Merit: 1000

Bitcoin is too valuable to be used as a currency

Good luck Charlie, May the force be with you.

Culex

Beliathon

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 1000

https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU

Quote from: tins on September 01, 2014, 12:28:47 PM

Quote from: oceans on September 01, 2014, 08:48:21 AM

I think anyone in this kind of situation would have taken any chance they had to get themselves a lighter sentence even if it meant pleading guilty. It seems this was the case and I know many of us if put into the same situation would have taken the same decision.

Especially anybody with a family...imagine having to go decades without seeing those people you hold most dear in your life.

I'd rather be dead. I'm not alone.

tins

hero member

Activity: 882

Merit: 500

Quote from: oceans on September 01, 2014, 08:48:21 AM

I think anyone in this kind of situation would have taken any chance they had to get themselves a lighter sentence even if it meant pleading guilty. It seems this was the case and I know many of us if put into the same situation would have taken the same decision.

Especially anybody with a family...imagine having to go decades without seeing those people you hold most dear in your life.

clemahieu

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 122

What would you recommend people do to avoid being in the same situation?

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: ANTIcentralized on September 01, 2014, 02:58:24 AM

Is he actually guilty? - technically yes. Although the reason he is guilty is really only because he did not reasonably gather the identity of the people he was selling bitcoin to. If he made a better effort to gain the identity of his buyers of bitcoin then he would not be guilty. The government really has him on nothing more then a technicality.

Thats actually not what my alleged crimes were. We have the identities of everyone. The prosecution alleges that I "with intent, promoted silk road". They make that connection by my alleged knowledge that a very small % of BitInstant Bitcoin purchases were by customers who wanted to buy something on silk road.

Quote from: runam0k on September 01, 2014, 06:04:27 AM

I assume he's banned from working in the money-transmitter space. Is he banned from operating Bitcoin businesses generally?

Nope, Im actually working for one now Grin

http://www.coindesk.com/payza-launches-bitcoin-buying-consumers-190-countries/

Quote from: tins on September 01, 2014, 01:10:55 AM

He took the lesser crime to avoid a long possible sentence.
I'd think most of us, if put in his position, would be forced to do the same thing.

Yes I was facing 30 years with money laundering charges.

QuestionAuthority

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1393

You lead and I'll watch you walk away.

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: ANTIcentralized on September 01, 2014, 02:58:24 AM

Is he actually guilty? - technically yes. Although the reason he is guilty is really only because he did not reasonably gather the identity of the people he was selling bitcoin to. If he made a better effort to gain the identity of his buyers of bitcoin then he would not be guilty. The government really has him on nothing more then a technicality.

Thats actually not what my alleged crimes were. We have the identities of everyone. The prosecution alleges that I "with intent, promoted silk road". They make that connection by my alleged knowledge that a very small % of BitInstant Bitcoin purchases were by customers who wanted to buy something on silk road.

Quote from: runam0k on September 01, 2014, 06:04:27 AM

I assume he's banned from working in the money-transmitter space. Is he banned from operating Bitcoin businesses generally?

Nope, Im actually working for one now Grin

http://www.coindesk.com/payza-launches-bitcoin-buying-consumers-190-countries/

Quote from: tins on September 01, 2014, 01:10:55 AM

He took the lesser crime to avoid a long possible sentence.
I'd think most of us, if put in his position, would be forced to do the same thing.

Yes I was facing 30 years with money laundering charges.

Thanks for dropping in Charlie. I knew you would. I read a Reddit thread that was accusing you of all kinds of horrible things that I knew weren't true and I wanted to give you a chance to address them if you could and not jeopardize your case. Reddit's down voting system keeps good answers at the bottom and lies at the top. Besides I don't think anyone would believe it was you on Reddit.

All of the questions in the OP were gleaned from that Reddit post. Can you address some of them without compromising your case? Do you believe you were just in the wrong place at the right time because they were investigating Silk Road already? Obviously you have the insider info I was talking about. Do you think your prosecution was meant to make the rest of us behave? Should we fear NY as a place to do business (are they gunning for us)? I know Coinbase already put the application in for a Bitlicense in NY. Should they withdraw it? (keep 49 states and give up on that one?)

Beliathon

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 1000

https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU

Quote from: Soros Shorts on September 01, 2014, 05:58:46 AM

So what is the maximum sentence for "aiding and abetting an unlicensed money transmitter"? Seems pretty mild compared to the original charges so I am not surprised he took the deal. Unfortunately this also means that a court won't be considering the legality of a company like BitInstant. From what I remembered they'd made some effort to remain legit.

max for his charge is 5 years, but he won't get sentenced to that.

Yankee (BitInstant)

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1000

Charlie 'Van Bitcoin' Shrem

Quote from: BitCoinDream on September 01, 2014, 08:15:53 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: ANTIcentralized on September 01, 2014, 02:58:24 AM

Is he actually guilty? - technically yes. Although the reason he is guilty is really only because he did not reasonably gather the identity of the people he was selling bitcoin to. If he made a better effort to gain the identity of his buyers of bitcoin then he would not be guilty. The government really has him on nothing more then a technicality.

Thats actually not what my alleged crimes were. We have the identities of everyone. The prosecution alleges that I "with intent, promoted silk road". They make that connection by my alleged knowledge that a very small % of BitInstant Bitcoin purchases were by customers who wanted to buy something on silk road.

Quote from: runam0k on September 01, 2014, 06:04:27 AM

I assume he's banned from working in the money-transmitter space. Is he banned from operating Bitcoin businesses generally?

Nope, Im actually working for one now Grin

http://www.coindesk.com/payza-launches-bitcoin-buying-consumers-190-countries/

Quote from: tins on September 01, 2014, 01:10:55 AM

He took the lesser crime to avoid a long possible sentence.
I'd think most of us, if put in his position, would be forced to do the same thing.

Yes I was facing 30 years with money laundering charges.

Wont u face problem for discussing your sentence openly in public ?

No

oceans

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 250

I think anyone in this kind of situation would have taken any chance they had to get themselves a lighter sentence even if it meant pleading guilty. It seems this was the case and I know many of us if put into the same situation would have taken the same decision.

Topic: Charlie Shrem Pleads Guilty - What do you think? - page 5. (Read 5933 times)