Topic: State of Florida attacks Bitcoin - page 3. (Read 8286 times)

I'm not sure what the term "victimless crime" is supposed to mean under that point of view. You could say "the public at large are all inherent victims" of any crime.

Considering that the crime itself is predicated on other crimes, I'd say it really depends on the crime the proceeds of which are laundered.

If, as in this case, the proceeds are presumably either from or going to be used to purchase stolen credit cards, yes, there are inherently victims in the actually completed crime, even if there are no actual victims.

I like that one.  I'm saving that for the next time I'm having dinner with a group that I know has a wide range of political and social beliefs.  Should make for some very interesting conversation.

Agreed that would be a better example.  More specifically, if the undercover cop contacted the accused and said, lying, "I just stole this cash from (and mentioned a bank that was widely reported to have been recently robbed), I'd like to use it to purchase (anything legal that the accused might be offering to sell)". Then after the accused agreed to the deal, returned a month later saying, lying, "Here's some more cash from another bank robbery that hasn't been reported by the news yet, can I buy more of (those same legal items that I bought last time)?"  The accused has demonstrated a willingness to accept stolen property in exchange for legal merchandise.

Are those actions victimless? Is that a crime?

From your worldview, I agree there is no victim there.  For some, the public at large are all inherent victims in the concept of money laundering or accepting stolen merchandise.  As such, there is at least an intended (or planned) victim of the actions of the accused.

Another interesting hypothetical is whether or not those people who are praying for Obama to die can be charged with attempted murder. And if so, would that be a victimless crime? But that one isn't really analogous to the money laundering one.

Yes, that's why I thought the bank robbery example was not very relevant.

A better analogy with bank robbery would be if an undercover cop gave the accused a stack of cash and said, lying, "I just stole this from the bank, here you take it". The charge: (attempted) receipt of stolen property.

Or in the case of murder, if an undercover cop gave the accused a mannequin in a body-bag and said "I just killed this guy, dump him in the river for me." The charge: (attemped) illegal disposal of human corpses.

In either case, I don't see who the victim is.

But what about attempted-murder-for-hire?


So where does money laundering fall?

In the case being discussed, not only were there were no stolen credit cards, there was not even any intent to steal credit cards.  The two questions being presented are:

Is the actual act of money laundering a "victimless crime"?

Does the demonstrated willingness to commit money laundering have any "inherent victims"?

I didn't think we were talking about whether the actions of law enforcement were justified, but were talking about whether or not the alleged crime was victimless.

That said, it doesn't bother me when people disagree with me.


No. Intent to commit murder and planning to commit murder aren't crimes at all. And threatening to commit murder usually has a victim.


It could be.

Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that.


Great.


I think there's quite a difference between the intended victim being unharmed and the intended "victim" being nonexistent.


No. The stealing of the credit card has intended victims. The money laundering itself is victimless.


Intent to murder is not a crime at all. Planning to murder (if only one person is involved in the planning) is not a crime at all. Threatening murder has a victim.

Attempted murder might, in some cases, not have a victim. But please don't take that to mean that I feel it shouldn't be a crime. If by "attempted murder" you mean trying to kill someone and failing, that should be a crime. If by "attempted murder" you mean trying to kill something that is not a person and succeeding, that shouldn't be (though in at least some jurisdictions it sometimes is).


What I said is that there might be a victim if the public is aware of the threat, and I gave an example of a family member. If someone credibly threatens to kill my spouse, I think it's accurate to say that I've been victimized by that person.


And you agree they don't, right?

The "victim" is imaginary.


Who's the victim in your worldview?


There's no Florida law against victimless crimes, so whether or not there's a victim is really irrelevant.

You agree the money services business charge is a victimless one, right?

Clearly, in this case, there is no specific victim.  The crime was imaginary and the victims nonexistent.  Similarly, if you tried to hire a hit man to "rub out the guy who ratted on me" and there was no actual rat, there would be no actual victim.  However, murder-for-hire is not a victimless crime.  It inherently intends to have a victim and where one exists, that victim will be harmed.  Similarly, selling stolen credit card numbers is inherently a crime where there are victims, if the crime is completed.

I generally interpret the term "victimless crime" to mean "crimes" where inherently, there are no victims.  So, for instance, purchasing drugs is a victimless crime.  Thinking "bad" thoughts or expressing them is a victimless crime.  Any act which does not impair someone else in the exercise or enjoyment of their rights is victimless, and should never be subject to punishment by the state.

Depending on how they interpret the specific intent requirement in Florida, that might actually be a defense, as silly as it sounds.  Of course, the fact-finder would have to believe or at least have reasonable doubt as to that intent.  For example, suppose the defendant testified that due to his personal knowledge of the buyer, he knew that the buyer was a milquetoast who really wanted to buy embarrassing, but entirely legal porn and made up this story to seem like a badass.

(Incidentally, while this may be a defense against the full monty money laundering charge, there are quite possibly lesser included offenses of money laundering that apply without specific intent.)

At that point, no crime there, unless you buy the state's rather contrived theory about unlicensed money transmitting businesses.  Incidentally, the latter is the far more worrisome potential consequence of this case, especially if adopted at the federal level, and there is some statutory basis for it.

The question I'm attempting to answer is "Who's the victim?", not "What is the crime?"

To determine the answer to the question of "Who's the victim?", I first needed to find out if we both identify victims in the same way.  I used an extreme example of intent and threat to commit murder to determine if the person asking "Who's the victim?" would identify a victim in cases where threats and intent exist, but the threatened and intended action has not yet occurred.

Having established a particular viewpoint on the matter, I was then able to return to discussion about the actions surrounding these individuals trading of bitcoins.  That answer applies only to the particular viewpoint expressed by anth0ny.  If someone else would identify some other "victims" in the threat and intent to commit murder, then there would be a some other "victims" in these cases being discussed.

Please understand, I don't necessarily disagree with you nor do I necessarily believe that the actions of law enforcement in these two cases are justified.  I find the discussion to be interesting and the debate to be mentally stimulating.  As such, I'm taking the opposite side of this discussion because "Yeah! What he said!" doesn't allow for much of a conversation, nor does it leave much opportunity for education, or expansion of knowledge.  The act of the debate itself helps to draw out possibilities, lines of thought, and deeper understanding that are not possible with simple agreement.  That being said:


Interesting.  In your view, intent to commit murder, threatening murder, and planning to commit murder are all victimless crimes.  As such, until the murder is actually committed and someone's life is actually gone, prosecuting such an individual would be prosecuting someone for a victimless crime?  If that really is your viewpoint, then you're right.  Given the way you look at the world and interpret the activities around you, the individuals in these cases are being subjected to law enforcement actions for a victimless crime.  Looking at the matter from your viewpoint, I'm also unable to see a victim in the actions of the accused individuals in these cases.


Ok, if you are willing to consider as a victim a member of the public who heard about the threat, then we're getting close to having something to work with here. It would appear that the members of law enforcement involved in this case are stating that the accused individuals have an intent to commit money laundering, agreed (or threatened) to commit money laundering, and have planned to commit money laundering.  I'm not sure that they can be charged with actual money laundering, but the question I'm trying to answer isn't what crimes they've committed, but rather whether those crimes (or rather the actions and statements of the accused) are victimless. Since money laundering is used specifically to assist criminals in their endeavors (in this case the purchasing and selling of stolen credit card information), the planned acts of money laundering have, as you stated, intended victims.  If the planned acts of money laundering are not yet committed, but are known about by others, then perhaps a member of the public who hears about the planned act of money laundering (such as the law enforcement officials) can be considered a victim?  Actual stolen credit card information may not have been bought or sold, but if the accused has demonstrated a willingness, intent, and plan to commit money laundering, then anyone who is aware of this willingness, intent, and plan is a victim of the threat of money laundering.

I understand that I'm reaching a bit here (ok maybe more than a bit).  That's mostly because in your worldview intent, planning, and threatening murder is also essentially a victimless crime.  I've already admitted that given your worldview, the accused in these cases are also being charged with victimless crimes.  My previous paragraph is just the best I can do to shoehorn a "victim" into your particular worldview (given your willingness to accept "the public" as a victim of a threat of murder against an individual).

I also recognize that intent to commit money laundering, planning to commit money laundering, and threatening to commit money laundering are neither in the list of charges filed, nor are they likely to be prosecutable crimes (or illegal at all?).  My efforts are not to determine whether or not the accused committed any crimes, but rather to determine whether or not the actions of the accused have a "victim".


I've done the best I can to determine if there is any sort of victim at all given your worldview.  I may have come up short, but its the best I can do.  It will be interesting to see how this plays out in Florida.

Well, these weren't neighbors.

If instead of a single transaction between you and your neighbor, you were in the business of selling cars, then the crime would be running an auto dealership without a license.

Well, this happens all the time. Adult cops pose as underage children, fake drugs are purported to be the real thing...


The underlying crime which was attempted/solicited/conspired would have to be money laundering, not credit card theft.

Still, I don't see how they'd do it.

I am not legal expert, but from a logical point of view, this does not make sense.

For instance.  If I have a transaction history of my bitcoins.  Bought in X and paid y$.  Today I sell X for z$, then funds that I receive a fully accounted for.  The only crime I could fathom is that the buyer cannot explain where he received his $100.000 from.

What if the following happened, if my neighbour sold his car for $100.000 and paid me $100.000  for a piece of paper that has a drawing that i drew on it?  Where is the crime?  If my neighbour values my piece of paper at $100.000, then who can say anything?

What's next, now the law will tell me how I will spend my hard earned cash?

Sounds like some political bullshit.

My point exactly.  It's one thing for a undercover to lie to maintain his cover so he can be a WITNESS to a crime.  But, it's completely different for the undercover to fabricate an imaginary crime and build the case that the accused believed those fabrications AND acted to promote the crime.  If he gave evidence he believed the fabrications, he could still have an entrapment case, because entrapment doesn't mean the accused didn't commit a crime. It means he wouldn't of committed it ordinarily of the government didn't entrap him.  But, in this case, he took no action even indicating he believed their lie, let alone took an action to actually promote the purchase of credit card numbers. 

It isn't alleged, so far as I can tell, that he even had INTENT to help the undercover agent steal the credit card numbers, since the undercover agent claimed that the numbers were already stolen.

I guess the argument is that he had the intent to commit money laundering.

How did we leap from trading bitcoins to conspiracy to commit murder?  Espinoza is not a murderer or a bank robber.  He wasn't trading lethal weapons.  He was trading currency, the same thing we use to order a pizza and pay our bills.  The only one expressing any illegal intent in his case was the government.  And Espinoza showed no interest in stealing credit cards, and quite possibly found their outlandish claims to be obviously ridiculous.  The entire accusation against him is that he BELIEVED every word coming from the government's mouth as if it was an indisputable truth and had INTENT to promote their claimed agenda.  But, there is no evidence in the affidavit that he did either. 

It would be entirely different if the undercover agents were a witness to him trying to support credit card theft, KNOWING that the people he was dealing with were really credit card thieves.  But, the only FACT in this case as spelled out by the affidavit is that the government is NOT a credit card thief. 

They government needs to PROVE that he BELIEVED their lies in order to build a case that relies on this premise.

Not necessarily. There's an intended victim. There's a planned victim. But nothing in what you said shows that there's an actual victim.

That said, given that you made your threat public, maybe one of the members of the public who heard about the threat (say, a family member of the intended victim) could be considered a victim.

Now your turn.

What if there's no actual bank? Then there isn't even an intended or planned victim, let alone an actual victim.

If you disagree, then who's the victim?