Topic: Shrem's kidnapping reveals slavish mindset of "public Bitcoin figures" - page 2. (Read 4873 times)

That's something we can agree on. Shrem isn't really anything like them. Still, he's being charged with victimless crimes, and it's bullshit.

Er... one of the charges is operating an unlicensed money transmitting business... so...


You're right, they're totally not heroes. Because telling the American people about their government backstabbing them is a terrible thing to do. Let me guess, you're another victim of the American education system?

Most likely when his company applied to be a money transmitter business. Do you think compliance is just a verbal agreement? I am certain that there is a document with his signature where he declares to be aware of the requirements made by the authorities.

When exactly did he agree of his own free will to comply with those requirements? He was TOLD that he would follow those rules, or he would be thrown in a cage.

What Shrem deserve is up to a court of justice to decide, not me, you or anyone else. Moreover, he did not made anything morally wrong. This is not about his moral views, this is about the agreement he made with the authorities. He promised to comply with certain requirements and failed to keep up with the promise. In other words, he agreed to play by certain rules and was caught cheating. Now a court of justice will decide what punishment he will receive. I personally think he will not be jailed. He is going to be offered the opportunity to help the authorities collect evidence to build other cases. The authorities know that is much better having him around to help them rather than having he locked in a jail for the next decades.

whos the chief compliance officer of HSBC or Wachovia or JP morgan, is he still at large or caged? hhhmmm

The people in the suits that write things on paper have the "right" to kidnap you because they have more guns and weapons at their disposal than you do.

That is the only thing that matters.

bitcoin was had the silk road propaganda for years. so really it is not that damaging, it is just trying to keep the propaganda machine fuelled to the same level.

i do agree they are using shrem as a President so show other exchanges that the US government does not take money laudering lightly. but the failure in this scheme of theirs, if the first post of this thread is to be believed (concerning the alleged broken laws):


only licenced money transmitters are required to file SAR reports by law.. which must mean he had a licence, to have failed his duties under the licence.. which counter-acts this alleged crime:


.... i am now intrigued and might start looking deeper into the facts of this, as something does not look right

Shrem is giving BTC a bad name, buying drugs off the Silk Road, laundering money and knowingly letting unlawful things slide by his attention!

This is bad publicity for BTCitcoins network, but they are just trying to use Shrem as a international example for others involving themselves in illegal festivities within the US

The difference is psychological, not physical. When you hear of someone being arrested, you react in a certain conditioned way (hmm, what did he do?). In contrast, hearing of someone being kidnapped sparks emotions like empathy. And if Shrem didn't engage in any moral wrong-doing, then it's more accurate to say that he was kidnapped, rather than arrested.



So you're saying that just because you don't happen to agree with the law against eating chicken, that doesn't invalidate that law?

Why would you take an abstract idea like a piece of legislation as the authority over your own moral reasoning? Are you unconsciously surrendering your sovereignty and freedom to a piece of paper written by some self-serving weasel in a suit? Or am I reading you wrong?




Can someone who believes Shrem got what he deserved explain what he did wrong, morally?

Well put.

I would add:

What goes around, comes around.

I've seen this countless times in life. Sooner or later, those who act in a certain way will face consequences.


He's done a great service to the community with his company, and if he stuck to doing business the 'right way', he would probably still be doing it.

It's not like he agreed of his own free will to the AML bullshit. It was, "Agree, or we will throw you in a rape cage for 20 or 30 years."

Putting the issue aside of whether people should be allowed to do whatever they want to themselves.  He screwed over his own partner and his investors by engaging in activity that he said he would not engage in especially holding the title of Chief Compliance Officer.  BitInstant could have been what CoinBase is today and greater.  It's like asking people for money to invest in my coin and then going and using it for other purposes than to develop the coin.   He screwed himself over and the stakeholders of his company out of potential future revenue.

This is why all alt-coins should stay decentralized...

Shrem sold himself out to 'the man' than tried to get clever.

He fucked himself.


Typical kids with spines of a jellyfish.

Moral issues aside,  if you choose to not follow known rules you take the risk of getting in trouble.

I haven't seen anything to suggest he was doing this for any other reason than to make a quick buck.  If he was doing it for "moral" reasons though,  I would have to assume his money would be more well spent lobbying to have certain laws changed ,  not much progress or help you can do if you're sitting in a jail cell.

I don't think non violent people should go to prison, I wish him the best of luck. With that said, he knows the rules  and risks and chose to play them how he wanted.

There is no difference between the two.

The fact that some kidnappers wear costumes does not change their actions from kidnapping to something that isn't kidnapping. Clothing isn't magical.

I agree with you. Our government works for itself, no one else, and certainly not the people. Any candidate you vote for will change nothing, because they differ in no way that matters. In short, we're fucked. Laws against activities that harm no one are just a symptom.

A valid point if true, though you forgot the "allegedly."

But did he really "turn around and break the rules he agreed to play by"? Or did he simply not do anything (negligence) because he felt that there was nothing wrong with what was happening? That seems to be the case with charges 1 and 3 (conspiracy to commit money laundering, failing to file a suspicious activity report).

Remember to separate legal "wrong-doing" from moral wrong-doing.

So, can you elucidate in which way he "turned around and broke the rules he agreed to play by"?

As Rick Falkvinge points out:


Indeed, this is a KIDNAPPING, not an arrest.

The funny thing is that even IF it were a genuine money laundering charge, Shrem would still be morally innocent, because the money was (allegedly) used to buy drugs, not to steal or murder or otherwise cause harm to someone.

If some guy in a suit who calls himself a "lawmaker" writes on a piece of paper that it is "unlawful" to eat chicken, and you are "caught" eating chicken and forcibly taken away from your home -- would you call that an "arrest" or a kidnapping?

Nobody is harmed by you eating chicken. Nobody was harmed by what Charlie Shrem is alleged to have done by people believing themselves to be "authority." If we assume the charges against Sherm are true, who exactly was harmed? The answer is obviously nobody.

(The charges are: one count of conspiring to commit money laundering, one count of operating an unlicensed money transmitting business, and one count of wilfully failing to file a suspicious activity report.)

As much as I like CoinDesk, they ran an article by a clueless/spineless Daniel Cawrey, who writes:


Really? So if I tell you that I'm the authority and you have to do as I say but you don't, and I then kidnap (arrest) you, it's your negligence, not my actions, that got you into such a precarious position? Who exactly grants me or people who say they are "the government" such "authority"? Cawrey hints at the answer a bit longer down the article:

"The [Bank Secrecy Act] gives FinCEN the authority under the auspices of the US Treasury to “determine emerging trends and methods in money laundering and other financial crimes”, according to the FinCEN website." - Oh, so a piece of paper, entitled Bank Secrecy Act, written by some self-serving "lawmakers," is what gives some people the right to initiate violent action against people who don't have that right. I see.

Cawrey continues:


The detriment is the slavish behavior too many in the community are displaying, as exemplified by this journalistic travesty by Cawrey. If all it takes is an accusation of some abstract victimless "crime" to take down one of our own, then we have already lost. You might as well sell all your bitcoins right now for some safe dollars. As a commenter to that article points out:


Exactly. Continue to believe in witches if you'd like, but the simple and obvious truth is that a man, innocent of any moral wrong-doing, has been unjustly kidnapped and is being threatened with 25 years in a cage. The fact that the people responsible call themselves "government" has no bearing on the facts. If it was the Mafia doing it nobody would find it acceptable.

As another commenter points out:


The Winklevoss twins, who invested in Shrem's BitInstant, had this to say upon learning of Shrem's arrest:


It's one thing to state "we have no connection to Sherm's alleged illegal activities" but it's another to unthinkingly pander to the oppressor.

Should the public faces of Bitcoin be opportunists who worship at the altar of the state? I don't think so. Bitcoin is the most disruptive technology of our time, more disruptive than the Internet, as Andreas Antonopoulos and Stefan Molyneux eloquently explain from differing perspectives. It's people like these who should be the public faces of Bitcoin, not unthinking, cowardly, profit-driven weasels who support oppression if under the umbrella of "government."

The Bitcoin Foundation, a group that ostensibly aims to represent the interests of the Bitcoin community, offers no comment on the facts of the matter, choosing instead to distance itself from its now former member, implicitly making the ridiculous assumption that this kidnapping of one of their members has nothing to do with an attack on Bitcoin.

They -- the control freaks who believe they have authority over other people (exclusive rights) -- are obviously paying a lot more attention to Bitcoin now, this kidnapping happening about the same time as the NY hearings and Gavin's CFR meeting. What all thinking people of conscience should be doing is vocally supporting Shrem, not assuming he's "guilty as charged" and a "bad apple" in the Bitcoin community. If we blindly accept the oppressive "laws" of the system whose greatest threat is cryptocurrencies, rather than guide ourselves by morality and natural law, then they have a chance of destroying/controlling Bitcoin. If we unthinkingly act this way, then it's only a matter of time before they kidnap the next top Bitcoin person.

As Falkvinge says:


If we don't stand up for Shrem, we are complete idiots waiting for the next blow.