Topic: State of Florida attacks Bitcoin - page 6. (Read 8286 times)
While there are certainly elements of standard criminal prosecution here, along the lines of the stolen credit cards issue...it feels as though the simple act of selling BTC for profit is really in question. It would seem that BTC should be treated like any other asset under capital gains laws, but the "money laundering" aspects are really not clear at this point...could the simple act of buying and selling BTC in and out of fiat alone for profit become a crime...? Applying existing law to unprecedented economic developments and technology is always a challenge, but it seems as though there could be some very real cause for concern regarding who may get caught up in the crossfire of transition. At least until the laws are clarified regarding application to digital currency.
Thanks for posting links to the complaints.
It is interesting that the description of Bitcoin was fairly accurate and concise. That surprised me some.
I laughed when I read "Special Agent Ponzi, United States Secret Service, determined that Michaelhack's fee was ...". Is that his real name? That's hilarious!
It is interesting that the description of Bitcoin was fairly accurate and concise. That surprised me some.
I laughed when I read "Special Agent Ponzi, United States Secret Service, determined that Michaelhack's fee was ...". Is that his real name? That's hilarious!
Florida and NY are the two states that always go after payment processors who don't have state licenses to operate. Avoid those 2 states at all costs or pay off their corrupt legislators to give you licenses. LE posing as Bitcoin traders and trying to get somebody to trade over $10k with them for no ID so they can extort them with laundering charges and seize all their money was bound to happen.
Except they didn't do just that. They approached them claiming to want to buy Bitcoin to commit outright crimes. But yes, New York is the most likely state to simply go right after Bitcoin sellers for no other reason than just selling Bitcoin. These Florida LEAs felt it necessary to do a sting. Otherwise, they'd have just arrested them the first time they showed up and sold a small about of Bitcoin.
How smart could these dudes have been? "Hey, mon, I'm not a narc, really! I just want to buy this coin to go commit a bunch of crimes! You okay with that, brah?" And these clowns agreed to do it.
Florida and NY are the two states that always go after payment processors who don't have state licenses to operate. Avoid those 2 states at all costs or pay off their corrupt legislators to give you licenses. LE posing as Bitcoin traders and trying to get somebody to trade over $10k with them for no ID so they can extort them with laundering charges and seize all their money was bound to happen.
Entrapment has been and always will be a common tactic amongst law enforcement in America.
If they know people wan't prostitutes they will set up fake prostitution stings , if they know people want drugs they will have undercovers selling drugs, if they know people want to launder their illegally gained funds they will set up sting ops that would attract those type of people.
I don't think this is an attack on bitcoin so much, just another example of police going undercover and offering illegal things/services and then see who bites.
If they know people wan't prostitutes they will set up fake prostitution stings , if they know people want drugs they will have undercovers selling drugs, if they know people want to launder their illegally gained funds they will set up sting ops that would attract those type of people.
I don't think this is an attack on bitcoin so much, just another example of police going undercover and offering illegal things/services and then see who bites.
In a normal case of entrapment, everyone involved knows the product is illegal. Bitcoin is not illegal.
Unless there's more to this than just selling Bitcoin, which is a commodity, not a recognized form of money that goes through the banking system, this would be setting people up for something they had no reason even to believe was illegal, because this is a completely novel interpretation of the law.
Assuming, that is, that there is nothing more than selling Bitcoin involved here.
Knowing that the person you're selling bitcoin to is using them as a means to make an anonymous purchase of stolen credit card information would be considered aiding in money laundering as far as I see it. Selling bitcoin to someone is fine, selling bitcoin to someone who has told you he's converting his dollars so he can buy stolen credit card information with the bitcoins and he's told you this multiple times over a 2 month span is where things start to turn illegal.
Same would be true if someone approached you with cash and told you the money was stolen so he needed to exchange it for your cash so it wouldn't come back to him, that would be a similar situation. Trading cash isn't illegal, but in that situation you'd be helping someone launder money and you'd be aware of it since they told you the reason for the exchange.
So just to clarify, a lot of articles are leaving out the part about the undercover cop telling the bitcoin seller he needed the bitcoin to buy stolen cc info with it, supposedly the undercover agent said this multiple times over a 2 month span so the bitcoin seller has little excuse for saying he "didn't know"
I wouldn't jump to conclusions from the sparse facts in these news stories. I'd like to see the actual complaints. The media often gets things completely wrong. One story, for instance, claims they're using the state equivalent of the statute used on Charlie Shrem, but doesn't actually say which statute (there are two charges in that complaint) or what part of it, or what they're actually alleging other than that people sold Bitcoin.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/205808113/Def-Espinoza
What a horribly written document. Of course, most documents written by police are. The facts alleged here, though, are that they arranged a meet with this guy where they told him they were going to use Bitcoin to buy stolen credit card numbers from Russian criminals. In other words, he knew the purchase was going to go toward criminal activities.
Seriously, people, anyone who ever sells Bitcoin, if someone tells you something like that, tell them to GTFO. That person is either an idiot or a cop.
Quote
And this sting used exactly the same rationale. The undercover officer told the suspect he intended to purchase stolen credit card numbers with the Bitcoin. That doesn't sound very smart to me. Anyone who hears that and then goes ahead with it anyway is at best aiding and abetting.
I suspected there was more to this than just selling Bitcoin. The worrisome aspect is if this ends in something other than a plea deal, it might set a bad precedent that selling Bitcoin does, in fact, constitute "money transmittal." I think buying Bitcoin, if done as a business, might, because you'd actually be delivering money. Someone selling Bitcoin, though, is just selling a commodity, more like someone selling stuff on Amazon.
Entrapment has been and always will be a common tactic amongst law enforcement in America.
If they know people wan't prostitutes they will set up fake prostitution stings , if they know people want drugs they will have undercovers selling drugs, if they know people want to launder their illegally gained funds they will set up sting ops that would attract those type of people.
I don't think this is an attack on bitcoin so much, just another example of police going undercover and offering illegal things/services and then see who bites.
If they know people wan't prostitutes they will set up fake prostitution stings , if they know people want drugs they will have undercovers selling drugs, if they know people want to launder their illegally gained funds they will set up sting ops that would attract those type of people.
I don't think this is an attack on bitcoin so much, just another example of police going undercover and offering illegal things/services and then see who bites.
In a normal case of entrapment, everyone involved knows the product is illegal. Bitcoin is not illegal.
Unless there's more to this than just selling Bitcoin, which is a commodity, not a recognized form of money that goes through the banking system, this would be setting people up for something they had no reason even to believe was illegal, because this is a completely novel interpretation of the law.
Assuming, that is, that there is nothing more than selling Bitcoin involved here.
Florida is an ideal pro-dollars state. The reason is, it has lots of retirees who are on Social Security. Retire to Florida the saying used to be. And that's what thousands of elderly people have done.
The state has been living off the money those retirees spend, and neither the retirees or the state want anything to do with a form of trade that could destroy money and their way of life.
Think of it. If Bitcoin became popular, and people started using it in place of money in a big way, we could actually see a collapse of the money system. That would mean the collapse of both the resources for the retired elderly, and the state as well.
While this will not likely happen for some time, Florida is having nothing to do with it. They are "nipping it in the bud" so to speak, and trying to earn some free money off the accused, who probably won't get their money back even if the charges are dropped.
The state has been living off the money those retirees spend, and neither the retirees or the state want anything to do with a form of trade that could destroy money and their way of life.
Think of it. If Bitcoin became popular, and people started using it in place of money in a big way, we could actually see a collapse of the money system. That would mean the collapse of both the resources for the retired elderly, and the state as well.
While this will not likely happen for some time, Florida is having nothing to do with it. They are "nipping it in the bud" so to speak, and trying to earn some free money off the accused, who probably won't get their money back even if the charges are dropped.
I think your logic is a bit off, even if Florida is truly anti-bitcoin. If Bitcoin became popular, it would still be spent just like money and sales tax would still be collected at the retail level, so Florida would not make any less of their revenue. Only case where Florida would not make revenue, is if laws came down that said Bitcoin is treated as a commodity and therefore when you bought something with it, it would be more so considered a trade of one good for another and no sales tax would be collected in that case (I believe).
What you say is true. However, the use of Bitcoin, being decentralized, would cause such an increase of hard-to-track under-the-table activity, that if it were in widespread use, Bitcoin could change the whole appearance of money movement and trading. It might even cause the PEOPLE to review how they are being misrepresented by all the government officials, none of which obeys his/her oath of office. Nobody who is satisfied with things the way they are wants that.
I will agree that Bitcoin does make it harder to track under the table activity in a way, but I have read many news articles stating the US Dollar is still the easiest way to perform any "illegal" actives. While Bitcoin may cause the people to review the government, that is doubtful. I fully agree that most government officials act in their own best interest and not in the best interest of the people they are supposed to represent, but I hope people will finally wake up on their own. If Bitcoin happens to be that catalyst, then so be it. If not, something should eventually come along.
Crazy stuff. Attack what is new. BTC
Those men harmed no one. There is no victim here. There is no loss and no injury and no fraud. Therefore, there is no crime.
If the law worked like that we would be in paradise and 90% of the henchmen jobless.
I wouldn't jump to conclusions from the sparse facts in these news stories. I'd like to see the actual complaints. The media often gets things completely wrong. One story, for instance, claims they're using the state equivalent of the statute used on Charlie Shrem, but doesn't actually say which statute (there are two charges in that complaint) or what part of it, or what they're actually alleging other than that people sold Bitcoin.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/205808113/Def-Espinoza
http://www.scribd.com/doc/205808118/Def-Reid
"MICHELHACK'S PHONE NUMBER WAS INCLUDED IN THE POSTING BUT REDACTED IN THIS AFFIDAVIT."
But then they fail to redact his address and phone number from the first page of the affidavit. How nice.
If I go to a hardware store and tell the clerk that I'm buying this drill bit so that I can drill holes in my neighbor's tires, is the clerk somehow criminally responsible for selling me the drill bit?
If the clerk knows/believes that you are actually planning on using the drill bit to commit a crime? Then yes.
make crimes illegal and people will stop doing that
If I go to a hardware store and tell the clerk that I'm buying this drill bit so that I can drill holes in my neighbor's tires, is the clerk somehow criminally responsible for selling me the drill bit?
If the clerk knows/believes that you are actually planning on using the drill bit to commit a crime? Then yes.
You missed a key part of the story where the undercover agent told the bitcoin seller that he was going to use the bitcoins to purchase stolen credit card information. That's the key part in this case, and probably the only reason an arrest was/could be made.
This is an interesting point and one that I missed the first time I read the story.
Well, ok, but so what? If I go to a hardware store and tell the clerk that I'm buying this drill bit so that I can drill holes in my neighbor's tires, is the clerk somehow criminally responsible for selling me the drill bit? The clerk sold me a tool, and how I use it is my responsibility, not his.
I'm going to love watching how the State of Florida tries to base a prosecution on this nonsense.
But yes, I know...we're talking about Florida...Nick Navarro still working there? ;o)
You missed a key part of the story where the undercover agent told the bitcoin seller that he was going to use the bitcoins to purchase stolen credit card information. That's the key part in this case, and probably the only reason an arrest was/could be made.
This is an interesting point and one that I missed the first time I read the story.
I wouldn't jump to conclusions from the sparse facts in these news stories. I'd like to see the actual complaints. The media often gets things completely wrong. One story, for instance, claims they're using the state equivalent of the statute used on Charlie Shrem, but doesn't actually say which statute (there are two charges in that complaint) or what part of it, or what they're actually alleging other than that people sold Bitcoin.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/205808113/Def-Espinoza
http://www.scribd.com/doc/205808118/Def-Reid
Let's not jump to conclusions. But let's also examine a whole bunch of things going on behind the scenes. Government doesn't want to make any more ripples - and certainly no waves - in the thinking of the people than they have to.
When you look at how fast Bitcoin has come into somewhat popular use, you can see that anything that government does regarding it will start to cause a stir. And this is good. Government needs to be examined with a microscope. Why? Because if government were good, if money were acting rightly for people, Bitcoin wouldn't have become as popular as it has as fast as it has.
Florida is an ideal pro-dollars state. The reason is, it has lots of retirees who are on Social Security. Retire to Florida the saying used to be. And that's what thousands of elderly people have done.
The state has been living off the money those retirees spend, and neither the retirees or the state want anything to do with a form of trade that could destroy money and their way of life.
Think of it. If Bitcoin became popular, and people started using it in place of money in a big way, we could actually see a collapse of the money system. That would mean the collapse of both the resources for the retired elderly, and the state as well.
While this will not likely happen for some time, Florida is having nothing to do with it. They are "nipping it in the bud" so to speak, and trying to earn some free money off the accused, who probably won't get their money back even if the charges are dropped.
The state has been living off the money those retirees spend, and neither the retirees or the state want anything to do with a form of trade that could destroy money and their way of life.
Think of it. If Bitcoin became popular, and people started using it in place of money in a big way, we could actually see a collapse of the money system. That would mean the collapse of both the resources for the retired elderly, and the state as well.
While this will not likely happen for some time, Florida is having nothing to do with it. They are "nipping it in the bud" so to speak, and trying to earn some free money off the accused, who probably won't get their money back even if the charges are dropped.
I think your logic is a bit off, even if Florida is truly anti-bitcoin. If Bitcoin became popular, it would still be spent just like money and sales tax would still be collected at the retail level, so Florida would not make any less of their revenue. Only case where Florida would not make revenue, is if laws came down that said Bitcoin is treated as a commodity and therefore when you bought something with it, it would be more so considered a trade of one good for another and no sales tax would be collected in that case (I believe).
What you say is true. However, the use of Bitcoin, being decentralized, would cause such an increase of hard-to-track under-the-table activity, that if it were in widespread use, Bitcoin could change the whole appearance of money movement and trading. It might even cause the PEOPLE to review how they are being misrepresented by all the government officials, none of which obeys his/her oath of office. Nobody who is satisfied with things the way they are wants that.
I wouldn't jump to conclusions from the sparse facts in these news stories. I'd like to see the actual complaints. The media often gets things completely wrong. One story, for instance, claims they're using the state equivalent of the statute used on Charlie Shrem, but doesn't actually say which statute (there are two charges in that complaint) or what part of it, or what they're actually alleging other than that people sold Bitcoin.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/205808113/Def-Espinoza
http://www.scribd.com/doc/205808118/Def-Reid
Florida is an ideal pro-dollars state. The reason is, it has lots of retirees who are on Social Security. Retire to Florida the saying used to be. And that's what thousands of elderly people have done.
The state has been living off the money those retirees spend, and neither the retirees or the state want anything to do with a form of trade that could destroy money and their way of life.
Think of it. If Bitcoin became popular, and people started using it in place of money in a big way, we could actually see a collapse of the money system. That would mean the collapse of both the resources for the retired elderly, and the state as well.
While this will not likely happen for some time, Florida is having nothing to do with it. They are "nipping it in the bud" so to speak, and trying to earn some free money off the accused, who probably won't get their money back even if the charges are dropped.
The state has been living off the money those retirees spend, and neither the retirees or the state want anything to do with a form of trade that could destroy money and their way of life.
Think of it. If Bitcoin became popular, and people started using it in place of money in a big way, we could actually see a collapse of the money system. That would mean the collapse of both the resources for the retired elderly, and the state as well.
While this will not likely happen for some time, Florida is having nothing to do with it. They are "nipping it in the bud" so to speak, and trying to earn some free money off the accused, who probably won't get their money back even if the charges are dropped.
I think your logic is a bit off, even if Florida is truly anti-bitcoin. If Bitcoin became popular, it would still be spent just like money and sales tax would still be collected at the retail level, so Florida would not make any less of their revenue. Only case where Florida would not make revenue, is if laws came down that said Bitcoin is treated as a commodity and therefore when you bought something with it, it would be more so considered a trade of one good for another and no sales tax would be collected in that case (I believe).
Entrapment has been and always will be a common tactic amongst law enforcement in America.
If they know people wan't prostitutes they will set up fake prostitution stings , if they know people want drugs they will have undercovers selling drugs, if they know people want to launder their illegally gained funds they will set up sting ops that would attract those type of people.
I don't think this is an attack on bitcoin so much, just another example of police going undercover and offering illegal things/services and then see who bites.
If they know people wan't prostitutes they will set up fake prostitution stings , if they know people want drugs they will have undercovers selling drugs, if they know people want to launder their illegally gained funds they will set up sting ops that would attract those type of people.
I don't think this is an attack on bitcoin so much, just another example of police going undercover and offering illegal things/services and then see who bites.
What "illegal things" were offered by the undercover lawn enforcement orificer to the bitcoin seller? It was just an exchange of bitcoin for dollars. It's clearly just another case of flat out persecution. The only criminals here are the costumed thugs who kidnapped these men at gunpoint and locked them in cages for absolutely no justifiable reason. Those men harmed no one. There is no victim here. There is no loss and no injury and no fraud. Therefore, there is no crime.
You missed a key part of the story where the undercover agent told the bitcoin seller that he was going to use the bitcoins to purchase stolen credit card information. Thats the key part in this case, and probably the only reason an arrest was/could be made. It's one thing to exchange bitcoins for cash, it's another thing to do it when the buyer specifically tells you he intends to use the bitcoins for illegal reasons and you STILL go through with the trade.
"According to court documents, the agent told Michelhack that he wanted to use the Bitcoins to purchase stolen credit cards online. "
http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/02/florida-targets-high-dollar-bitcoin-exchangers/
Like I said earlier, it's a legal form of entrapment and it's something law enforcements do for all sorts of illegal things. The issue here isn't so much bitcoin , but selling bitcoin to someone who told you they would be used for a crime.
The REAL question for us is, of course, is crime still crime if it is legal crime?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.5042254
Jump to: