Topic: Poll: Did you actually read the entire Charlie Shrem Criminal Complaint? (Read 2686 times)
January 31, 2014, 12:43:19 AM
No worries Gareth. Good luck to ya.
January 30, 2014, 12:29:53 AM
After reading the complaint, I get the feeling that the unnamed co-founder of bitinstant (Gareth Nelson?) remains unnamed as he is a testifying witness?
that make any sense?
that make any sense?
I am not at present a witness in this case
Well that answers that!
Is there anything you can add to the story? Or you cant talk about it?
I can not add anything further for legal reasons
January 29, 2014, 10:15:04 PM
After reading the complaint, I get the feeling that the unnamed co-founder of bitinstant (Gareth Nelson?) remains unnamed as he is a testifying witness?
that make any sense?
that make any sense?
I am not at present a witness in this case
Well that answers that!
Is there anything you can add to the story? Or you cant talk about it?
January 29, 2014, 11:04:08 AM
After reading the complaint, I get the feeling that the unnamed co-founder of bitinstant (Gareth Nelson?) remains unnamed as he is a testifying witness?
that make any sense?
that make any sense?
I am not at present a witness in this case
January 29, 2014, 11:00:07 AM
After reading the complaint, I get the feeling that the unnamed co-founder of bitinstant (Gareth Nelson?) remains unnamed as he is a testifying witness?
that make any sense?
that make any sense?
January 29, 2014, 06:22:24 AM
I just read it and its still bullshit.
-There are no money transmitting LAWS that apply to bitcoin. For that to be the case, Congress would have had to write bitcoin legislation since its 2009 - it hasn't. Title 31 wasn't about bitcoin when it was written and it still isn't. Trading money for bitcoin is no more illegal than trading money for sandwiches.
-There are no money transmitting LAWS that apply to bitcoin. For that to be the case, Congress would have had to write bitcoin legislation since its 2009 - it hasn't. Title 31 wasn't about bitcoin when it was written and it still isn't. Trading money for bitcoin is no more illegal than trading money for sandwiches.
Money laundering is laundering no matter what medium you use.
That may or may not be true (IANAFPOSL) depending in part on whether you believe that the letter of the original law and the endlessly building and changing regulations is all that matters. But, you if were alive in the 80s when they erected these "anti-money laundering laws" (AMLs), coining the phrase "money laundering", they promised, so help them God, that they would only use them to pursue "drug kingpins". I ask the very simple question. Is Shem a "drug kingpin"?
If you are not "laundering" money you earned sellings drugs, then what evil are you committing?
That said, I have not yet, but plan to read the complaint.
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.
January 29, 2014, 03:04:25 AM
Man, Shrem sure screwed Gareth it looks to me like. What a worm.
January 29, 2014, 12:57:46 AM
I just read it and its still bullshit.
-There are no money transmitting LAWS that apply to bitcoin. For that to be the case, Congress would have had to write bitcoin legislation since its 2009 - it hasn't. Title 31 wasn't about bitcoin when it was written and it still isn't. Trading money for bitcoin is no more illegal than trading money for sandwiches.
-There are no money transmitting LAWS that apply to bitcoin. For that to be the case, Congress would have had to write bitcoin legislation since its 2009 - it hasn't. Title 31 wasn't about bitcoin when it was written and it still isn't. Trading money for bitcoin is no more illegal than trading money for sandwiches.
Money laundering is laundering no matter what medium you use.
That may or may not be true (IANAFPOSL) depending in part on whether you believe that the letter of the original law and the endlessly building and changing regulations is all that matters. But, you if were alive in the 80s when they erected these "anti-money laundering laws" (AMLs), coining the phrase "money laundering", they promised, so help them God, that they would only use them to pursue "drug kingpins". I ask the very simple question. Is Shem a "drug kingpin"?
If you are not "laundering" money you earned sellings drugs, then what evil are you committing?
That said, I have not yet, but plan to read the complaint.
January 29, 2014, 12:07:36 AM
-The Silk Road allegation is ridiculous, as they can't be held responsible for how people spend their bitcoin anymore than a bank teller can be held responsible for how someone spends cash.
This is all meant to SCARE YOU. Is it working?
I think that bank tellers do have a burden of responsibility to make sure that the person they are giving 20k in cash is not a drug dealer or terrorist. If they think you are, or might be, they go and get a manager, who then might ask more questions.
The only thin Shem did wrong is that he was arrogant and stupid.
January 28, 2014, 07:08:59 PM
Do you need to read every single law in the US to know that most of them violate human rights?
January 28, 2014, 10:25:26 AM
They'll use this is court if they find it
Unlikely, what with New York possibly legalizing MJ soon.
NY might be legalizing it? How soon? I wonder if there's any way it'll ever get legalised federally.
January 28, 2014, 10:22:19 AM
What a pile of drivel. Nobody in their right mind would produce that much repetitive text.
Infact, it reminded me why bitcoin was created in the first place
Infact, it reminded me why bitcoin was created in the first place
January 28, 2014, 10:22:09 AM
They'll use this is court if they find it
Unlikely, what with New York possibly legalizing MJ soon.
January 28, 2014, 10:17:45 AM
all i did was read this: http://www.vocativ.com/12-2013/night-bitcoin-millionaire-proud-stoner-charlie-shrem/
and realized we should have been hangin' out months ago.
#JewishBitcoinScarface
and realized we should have been hangin' out months ago.
#JewishBitcoinScarface
They'll use this is court if they find it
January 28, 2014, 09:57:46 AM
all i did was read this: http://www.vocativ.com/12-2013/night-bitcoin-millionaire-proud-stoner-charlie-shrem/
and realized we should have been hangin' out months ago.
#JewishBitcoinScarface
and realized we should have been hangin' out months ago.
#JewishBitcoinScarface
January 28, 2014, 09:44:00 AM
Read whole document. It's pretty simple.
1. Charlie Ignored his own company's AML policy and didn't notified US Govt because he was getting good gains from deals with BTCKing guy.
2. Charlie knew BTCking was selling coins on silkroad and used his company to receive cash from silkroad users, He banned BTCking's email and asked him to make a new once to continue his reselling services on silkroad. When Other co founder asked him to ban btckin, charles defended btcking and said "we make good profit from him".
1. Charlie Ignored his own company's AML policy and didn't notified US Govt because he was getting good gains from deals with BTCKing guy.
2. Charlie knew BTCking was selling coins on silkroad and used his company to receive cash from silkroad users, He banned BTCking's email and asked him to make a new once to continue his reselling services on silkroad. When Other co founder asked him to ban btckin, charles defended btcking and said "we make good profit from him".
January 28, 2014, 09:22:56 AM
Thanks good read
January 28, 2014, 09:21:03 AM
I just read it and its still bullshit.
-There are no money transmitting LAWS that apply to bitcoin. For that to be the case, Congress would have had to write bitcoin legislation since its 2009 - it hasn't. Title 31 wasn't about bitcoin when it was written and it still isn't. Trading money for bitcoin is no more illegal than trading money for sandwiches.
-There are no money transmitting LAWS that apply to bitcoin. For that to be the case, Congress would have had to write bitcoin legislation since its 2009 - it hasn't. Title 31 wasn't about bitcoin when it was written and it still isn't. Trading money for bitcoin is no more illegal than trading money for sandwiches.
Money laundering is laundering no matter what medium you use.
January 28, 2014, 09:18:14 AM
If he really did all those things then he deserves it.
Good, citizen! Follow your orders.
January 28, 2014, 08:55:12 AM
I just read it and its still bullshit.
-There are no money transmitting LAWS that apply to bitcoin. For that to be the case, Congress would have had to write bitcoin legislation since its 2009 - it hasn't. Title 31 wasn't about bitcoin when it was written and it still isn't. Trading money for bitcoin is no more illegal than trading money for sandwiches.
-This is all just political theater by the Freemason fag-douchebag troupe. Shrem is actually in on it - I guess to give him "street-cred". They timed it for just before a hearing on virtual currencies. Its not a coincidence. The chorus of agents chiming in on this forum is part of the ruse.
-The Silk Road allegation is ridiculous, as they can't be held responsible for how people spend their bitcoin anymore than a bank teller can be held responsible for how someone spends cash.
This is all meant to SCARE YOU. Is it working?
-There are no money transmitting LAWS that apply to bitcoin. For that to be the case, Congress would have had to write bitcoin legislation since its 2009 - it hasn't. Title 31 wasn't about bitcoin when it was written and it still isn't. Trading money for bitcoin is no more illegal than trading money for sandwiches.
-This is all just political theater by the Freemason fag-douchebag troupe. Shrem is actually in on it - I guess to give him "street-cred". They timed it for just before a hearing on virtual currencies. Its not a coincidence. The chorus of agents chiming in on this forum is part of the ruse.
-The Silk Road allegation is ridiculous, as they can't be held responsible for how people spend their bitcoin anymore than a bank teller can be held responsible for how someone spends cash.
This is all meant to SCARE YOU. Is it working?
Jump to: