Topic: Florida Judge Rules Bitcoin is Not Money - page 2. (Read 1160 times)

Well at least he got off on a technicality! I'm sure there are others that got 'busted' for the haynes crime of selling bitcoins and didn't get off so easy. There have been a lot of cases of well known users on this forum. Hopefully this helps everyone in the future.

Being equivalent of money is a weird way of saying it.
So if gold was used it would be the same verdict? 
That is just a strange ruling in a court of law if you ask me.

We've got to be very precise. The judge didn't say BTC wasn't money, but that it isn't the equivalent of money, and that AML regulations aren't applicable to this particular case.

USA has already accepted bitcoin and other forms of cryptocurrency, I don't understand why the judge will say bitcoin is not money.

But it is a form of payment so why would the judge not take that into consideration is beyond me.
So does this mean if somebody who is selling his stock of illegal goods for bitcoin he will have his case tossed out of court just for saying it was not bought with money?

I think there should've been more focus on the idea that what Michell was accused of didn't fit into the current Florida money laundering statutes, not whether or not bitcoins is money.

In my opinion, even if bitcoins were considered money, what Michell was looking to do wasn't money laundering, because there wasn't any evidence presented in the case that showed that he acquired the bitcoins illegally. (Someone who knows the case better than me is welcome to correct me on this.)

My understanding of money laundering is that it's where you take illegally acquired, tainted money, and look to convert it into clean money. There was no evidence that Michell's bitcoins were illegally acquired. The undercover officers staged the transaction to make it look as if Michell was complicit in future crimes that *they* wanted to commit with the bitcoins (credit card fraud), but that's also not money laundering, at least, not Michell's side of the transaction. It's definitely unclear to me, legally, whether *just hearing* someone comment on what they want to do with the money, or property, that they buy from you makes you complicit in *their* future crime.

I believe the judge, during the case, even made a comment about how, if anything, what Michell had been looking to do was more like "reverse money laundering", an activity that isn't in the law.

I would agree with you, but just because the amount is low ($3,000) doesn't mean the charge is not serious. Money laundering is a serious crime, and the important fact is that the judge ruled that selling Bitcoins was not money laundering in this case, even though he was not registered as an MSB. This also seemed to be a case of entrapment to me, in that the agent tried to get a charge of money laundering by telling the guy he was going to do something illegal with the Bitcoins before the sale took place, thereby trapping the man into a situation he did not try to enter willingly. He was just trying to sell his coins, he has no obligation once they are no longer in his control.

Of course he will toss charges. Its hard to believe for me that a country which insists a lot in promoting itself as a Free Country like USA will want to put in jail some person just because he is selling some bitcoin. The agent may wanted to make this a case but Espinoza the guy who sold the coins to a agent undercover have not broke any law in USA. Its without a doubt a right decision from the judge although not an expert in economics. Lastly its funny how the agent wanted to make this a case of money laundering with only 3-4 bitcoin involved which is maximum amount of 3000 USD at the best. This sum is not considered a big one and is was the right decision from the judge to not charge guilty Espinoza for selling such low amount.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/judge_rules_bitcoin_isnt_money_tosses_money_laundering_charges/

The Takeaways

• Under cover feds buy Bitcoin from defendant, tell him it's so that they can purchase stolen credit cards
• Feds arrest him for operating an unlicensed Money Services Business (MSB) and money laundering
• Defense argues that Bitcoin is not money, so he cannot be operating an unlicensed MSB or money laundering
• Judge ruled Bitcoin is not money and also that the defendant selling his Bitcoin did not constitute money laundering because he had no intention to promote an illegal activity (purchase stolen credit cards)
• This case is believed to be the first money laundering prosecution involving Bitcoin