Topic: State of Florida attacks Bitcoin - page 4. (Read 8286 times)

Before I answer that question, let me ask one of my own.

If I publicly threaten to murder someone, and I plan to murder someone, and I intend to murder someone, and that person is unaware of this threat, plan, and intent, is there a victim prior to my actually committing the murder?

I just described this case that way earlier today, before even reading this thread.  I reminded someone that many people demonized the Internet as a place that would enable gambling and child porn.  This debate rose to the US congress in the late 90s. 

Similarly, the VCR was supposed to be a tool for copyright infringement.  The result of this case is what helped to raise awareness of our fair use rights, only to be marginalized and regulated via the DMCA later on. 

The bigger problem, however, is that the money laundering laws created in the 80s to target "drug kingpins" were a time bomb waiting to go off as they gradually ensnared more and more innocent people who have no interest in drugs or profiting from them in any way.  Take the $10k limit established back then.  Is $10k in the 80s the same as $10k 30 years later?  Inflation ensures that more and more people are impacted every year -- until cash and privacy are eliminated for all citizens. 

Now comes bitcoin.  It is getting double wacked as both a new technology, and at a time when the dragnet of the money laundering laws has increased so wide that the % of people being targeted that most of us would consider "good people" is increasing rapidly.  In fact, triple wacked because bitcoins leaves out the central banks, which have been the most outspoken opponents of it.  Quadruple wacked when you consider how governments have increasing used central banks for political means by printing money to buy votes (the primary cause of the high inflation rate in Argentina). 

Hopefully these cases raise awareness not only for the benefit of bitcoin, but also to help push back some of our laws so that good people are not ensnared in them.  What good is a war on drugs when the end result is a war on people who don't use illegal drugs, people who support the real efforts that arrest real international drug traffickers to stop the drug trades themselves for cocaine, heroin, etc,..., but are people who use currencies, people who buy pizzas, people who pay rent/mortgage. 


 

AGREED
IT's just a tool what that stupid all these people afraid of...

I'd rather the test case for money transmitter charges have more sympathetic defendants. But it'll be interesting nonetheless.

Yup from a straight reading of the complaint those saying "entrapment" obviously have a definition of "if the cop doesn't tell you he is an undercover cop and in any way tricks you" = entrapment.  In the real world it doesn't come within a mile of entrapment.  For those thinking it rises to an entrapment defense .... cops can lie to you.  If this is the first time that truth has crashed into your reality well it is good to learn it before you are in a court room.

However the flip side is the money laundering charge doesn't even seem to hold water.  I am not saying it is a weak case, I am saying the the the basic material fact of the charge aren't represented. I mean the prosecutor has better chance of indicting for the murder of a person who isn't dead.   Unless there is more than what is in the complaint, I can't see it even surviving the first motion from the defense.  Honestly I don't think the prosecutor could get the grand jury to indict, even if they were half asleep, so that is a plus for the defense.

If the ML charges go away it gets a lot more interesting. Is the state of FL going to go ahead with the unlicensed money transmitter charge on an otherwise legit exchange?  If so then the hyperbolic title of the thread is 100% spot on.   So honestly I really do hope the ML charges get dismissed because then it just comes down to a black and white case on if two citizens of Florida can exchange dollars for Bitcoins.

Interesting quote from 896.101: "This subsection does not preclude the defense of entrapment."

lol

Is there case law and a supreme court challenge establishing this? 

When there is a claim that someone assisted a crime, it is usually a real crime that occurred.  It is bad enough that we've muddied the waters with conspiracy to commit a crime charges, which I've read some and been convinced that the accused in a few of these cases would never of tried to actually commit the alleged crimes.  But, now you're suggesting assisting someone who is conspiring to commit a crime, creating additional degrees of separation from an actual crime. 

That may be how recently enacted laws are written.  But, without case law and particularly a supreme court ruling, it's not clear that accusations that someone assisted someone lying about conspiring to commit a crime is a solid argument in court. 

The sad reality is that he's being pressured to plead, which is how the vast majority of criminal cases end up.  There are many cases where people plead, and were later proven innocent (e.g., through dna testing). 

But, you're right that he's unlikely to testify.  Nevertheless, if it goes to trial, I think defence should focus on the case being based on a lie fabricated by the undercover, for the reasons stated above, including entrapment and to challenge the "burden of suspicion". 

There are a minority who are good at detecting lies, as there are a minority who have a lot of memories when they were very young (like 2).  I've learned that the majority who cannot do either tends to believe that no one can do either, despite these phenomenons being proven. 

In any case, defence wouldn't need to prove that he knew he was lying, but only that he could believe that he knew he was lying, because the case is built around the state of the mind of the accused.  Read the affidavit.  With a jury, it would be hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't believe he was lying because nearly all of us at one time or another was certain when someone was lying to us.  Can you detect a bragger? 

Your link has more details. Cops are still jerks, for entrapment. Luring people to commit crimes then arresting them is always going to be wrong in my book, but you are right that the issue is that cops are jerks ... but this is not an outright attack on the bitcoin itself.

Thank you for your link.

But what if there is no actual bank? Who's the victim?

In this case there isn't even an intended victim or planned victim or attempted victim. The alleged victim is imaginary.

It's generally accepted in philosophy that to "know" something implies that the belief is actually true. (See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/)

The entrapment defense in the United States has evolved mainly through case law. Two competing tests exist for determining whether entrapment has taken place, known as the "subjective" and "objective" tests. The "subjective" test looks at the defendant's state of mind; entrapment can be claimed if the defendant had no "predisposition" to commit the crime. The "objective" test looks instead at the government's conduct; entrapment occurs when the actions of government officers would usually have caused a normally law-abiding person to commit a crime. (wikipedia)

Because this is based on a lie by the undercover agent with no material criminality such as drugs being offered, the state will have a hard time proving that the defendant "knew" it was a crime.  At that point, the state will likely bring up a burden of "suspicion"; but, being based on a lie it is itself subjective and likely to become an issue in a criminal defence.  Can a person really be convicted with a 1st degree felony for failing to be suspicious of a statement that is in fact a lie (not truly criminal)?  

EDIT: IANAL
 

If a customer informs a gun shop that they need a buy a gun so they can rob bank, and the gun shop assists the customer in acquiring the gun, the gun shop has committed a crime even if the customer is stopped before they get to the bank and commit their crime.

Robbing a bank at gunpoint isn't a victimless crime, so knowingly assisting the thief in acquiring a gun for the purpose of robbing the bank isn't a victimless crime even if there is no actual bank robbery that occurs.

It will be interesting if the defendant testifies that he can always tell when someone is lying, so he knew the buyer didn't know anyone in Russia. 

Life is easier if you don't let people know that you know they are lying.  With that philosophy, one no longer has to hear the child-like response, "prove I'm lying". 

Heh, they used the "DPR Seized Coins" address (in all caps) as the example.

However, there were no actual stolen credit card numbers involved in this alleged crime.

Yes.

It's a stupid law but they would be guilty of money laundering by "cleaning dirty money."

it sure is cannabis.  tell people not and they'll be like.  WELL MY DOLLARS ARE CANNABIS FUCK U

Maybe take a moment to really read the context of the complaints, or are you in 7th grade?