Topic: Liberty Reserve shutdown is a boost for Bitcoin? (Read 12720 times)

I'm worried about bitcoin for accusing money laundry in future. Just like liberty reserve !

The sock analogy might be useful but here's a summary of what Money Laundering means to the US IRS
http://www.irs.gov/uac/Federal-Statutes---Money-Laundering

Knowledge of the laws in your own geography may be helpful in avoidance of trouble for yourself and those with whom you do business.

OK, so maybe I'm not familiar with the term in a financial sense but to me "launder" implies cleaning.  Switching one pair of dirty socks with another pair of dirty socks seems hardly like doing laundry. 

Not at all. I simply want you to prove that it is not possible (as you suggest) that the US government could have evidence of money laundering here. I am quite sure you cannot do that. You assert it is not possible; please prove it. I'm not asking for you to prove anyone's innocence, and I'm not implying anyone's guilt -- I'm asking you to back up your statement. You say the source of funds is (always) concealed, therefore proof of money laundering is impossible. So in this situation, the US government could not have obtained sworn statements from those who worked with LR, and corroborating evidence of such, against the indicted. Likewise, they could not have ascertained the flow of illegal proceeds for even a handful of strings of transactions out of many millions. I find it hard to believe that you could prove this to be the case. You simply go on repeating that proof of guilt is impossible.

And I'm not sure where you got the idea that I endorse this shit, or that I think "privacy is a crime". You're on a bitcoin forum ffs -- what do you think I am, a Leninist? The fact is that I don't cling to a meaningless piece of paper that is shown to be useless time and time again, ad nauseum. Here in the real world, the constitution doesn't apply. I am not against privacy -- I simply live in the real world. If one is going to flagrantly flout AML regulations, I should hope they aren't so stupid so as to argue that their constitutional rights are being violated when they get nicked.

You seem to be suggesting that AML laws should not exist. Perhaps you should take that argument to a forum not filled with libertarians, crypto-anarchists, and assorted anti-government types. 

This is laughable. Again, as I said, you want from me to prove that I'm not guilty. This the Holy Inquisition approach as described above. Your only evidence is that I'm concealing or try to conceal the source of my money. I'm not concealing or trying to conceal anything. I just don't show the source off because I don't owe you anything, do I? Your perverted logic is saying that privacy is a crime. But it isn't! Moreover, privacy is a Constitutional right! This is why you have to break the law to prove that I'm breaking the law.

The only "crime" that LR did is that they refused to spy on their customers.

There are very many ways to determine the flow of funds.  Those may not be the most difficult part of the criminal allegation. The electronic record is only one of many pieces of evidence that can be brought to a court.  Testimony, affidavits, confessions of others who did buisiness with them.  All of those can be problems for the accused.

I don't know all the specifics of what they are being charged with, but I suspect it may include:

26 USC §7203 - Willful Failure to Keep Records
Willfulness will also be inferred if a concealment motive is part of the failure to keep records. However, an important factor in the probability of conviction in these investigations may be a substantial deficiency attributable to the failure to keep records.

The "willfulness" may require evidence of statements they made, or other communication records.  That may prove a more difficult thing than "knowing where the money came from".  It is very likely that the prosecutors won't have detail on all the transactions, (reportedly there were about 55 million transactions) but they likely have details on more than just a few.

Again. How can you prove that it is unknown where any of the funds come from? Why would you assume this? This is silly. The fact that I can't prove anything doesn't mean US attorney's office can't. Show me that US attorneys have no evidence, please.

Again, you avoid answering my question. The reason you avoid answering is obvious. There is no way to claim my money are illegal if you don't know where they come from!

So, LR can't be indicted for money laundering since there is no way they knew where their customers money were coming from!

I don't have any evidence of anything, and am not involved in the case in any way.  The evidence was presented to the judge who processed the warrants.  If this is anything like most criminal cases, the evidence has been piling up for a long while and they don't pull the trigger on prosecuting until they are pretty sure they have what they need, or they aren't likely to get anything better by waiting. 

And yes, modern law is based on some pretty archaic and ancient principles, though the frequency that they blame god for things since the inquisition has decreased.

To be clear, you are arguing against someone who is a strong advocate of 4th amendment protections, and is more or less on your side.  All I have been doing is explaining the process.  It is not so unusual.

As to what evidence the prosecution might have there are all sorts of possibilities irrespective of where any particular transfer originated.  According to the public reports, this was the combined effort of 17 countries.  For AML, usually it is some criminal that gets caught on something more serious that cooperates with their local authorities and explain to them their process.  Sometimes they get a lower penalty when the give the state evidence against others.  The electronic transfer record is not the only evidence that can exist, so even if you are acting anonymously digitally, you may not be anonymous in other ways.
=-=-
...from a recent theft of some $45 million from two Middle Eastern banks. “The complaint against one of the Dominican Republic gang members allegedly involved in the theft states that thousands of dollars' worth of stolen cash was deposited into two Liberty Reserve accounts via currency centers based in Siberia and Singapore,” the AP reported.

So anyway, back on the original topic.

I'm not even a regular on localbitcoins.com, but I recently posted an ad to sell a few coins. The person who bought them from me told me that they got $#$$!% because of the LR shutdown, and that his business partners have now switched to using BTC instead. I also had to help him with his wallet setup, explain a few Bitcoin concepts, and give him some advice about security.

The boost to Bitcoin due to the LR shutdown might already be happening on a grassroots level...

You made the same assumption again. How do you know that I don't know? That attempts were made to conceal the sources does not necessarily make it so.

Well, answer my question then. What evidence would you have of money being illegal if you don't know where they come from?

I'm not endorsing anyone's arguments, but the fact that sources are concealed (or perhaps more suitably, that attempts were made to conceal the sources) doesn't mean there is no evidence of illegal proceeds. That's a very strange assumption. Criminals fuck up all the time.

Not at all. You seem to forget the definition of money laundering you pointed out? You don't have any evidence of illegal money because their source is concealed. To have any evidence of money being illegal you have to know the source. Simple as that.

Your arguments are the same the Holy Inquisition used during the dark ages. Inquisition agents selected their targets on "probable cause" based on "some evidence". During the interrogation the "defendant" has to prove he/she is law-abiding citizen and that he/she is not guilty. If the poor victim died during the "indictment process" this was the ultimate proof that they were guilty, because God won't allow innocent people to die.

Or to put it more accurately, once prosecution shows evidence of all the prongs of the crime, the burden is on the defense to create doubt and one ignores this at their own risk.

Further, when probable cause is established, and the prosecution convinces a judge that the crimes are continuing and the only way to stop them is to hurt innocents, sometimes a judge agrees! 
They think of it as blocking traffic on a block where there is a violent crime occurring.  Lots of folks suffer but they think that maybe they stop something worse from happening and make an injunction judgement on that risk.

I can't say who is right and who is wrong in this LR stuff, but the legal system is working as it was designed.  Disagree with the design if you like, but it is not good to ignore it.

Probable cause is like probable pregnancy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy

Is the probable pregnancy a pregnancy or it isn't?

So, please accept my apologies I should have modified the universal principal to suit AML laws. It should read - "not guilty unless you're probably guilty"

...if there is probable cause for indictment and some evidence against them.

Please accept my apologies for putting an important part of the sentence near the end where it can be neatly chopped off.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause

No. The presumption always is "not guilty unless your guilt is proven"! Or, are you saying that AML law is an exception to this universal principle in every judicial system? You're guilty by presumption and you have to prove you are not guilty?!

No. Violating AML laws doesn't mean that you have laundered money.

Then the presumption is that at least some of it is ill-gotten, and it may be up to the defendant to show otherwise if there is probable cause for indictment and some evidence against them.