Topic: UK MtGox Losses Petition Your MP for an EDM or CPS Test Case (Read 498 times)

Hello all,

I have got really annoyed with the level of misunderstanding of legal and political process on here. Most people are trolls with no idea what they are talking about. I think that if we can work out how much money UK citizens have lost, we could easily petition our MPs to pressure the CPS to bring a test case to think about seizing and having bitcoins returned. I will copy the post I made as a reply to another topic as I feel that it explains quite well why I think it may be possible through extant legal procedures or an act of parliament (following an EDM, or early day motion) to at the very least seize bitcoins that we know belong to us. We're not talking about fifty quid here. This is one of the biggest heists of all time. I would be incredibly surprised if it was the case that after numerous individuals petitioning their MPs and bringing to the attention of law enforcement and parliament sizeable losses, nothing was done about it.

Now before you start throwing in your value judgments, I'm thinking specifically of UK political and legal process, the European warrant mechanism, and reciprocal law enforcement agreements with other nations. If you're just going to troll "it's like cash" or whatever please go and troll elsewhere, that is something to be established by due process, and until it is established by due process it is mere speculation. If you can trace your bitcoin to a residing address, and parliament or a test case decide that it is a good like any other, it is recoverable through legal procedures (just like copper is). Of course, it rests on a legal or political point. But it is not substantive in the way people suggest it is. The notion that legal categories (in the law we call them necessary fictions) bear close relation to substantive arguments is laughable. A bitcoin is what a government or legal body with the authority to do so decides it is. This is what we mean by a legal subject or a legal object (as far as the law is concerned, what it is does not matter, it is what it decides it is, consider the idea of a free and rational criminal, a legal fiction necessary for the operation of the law). Money, property, commodity —these are conventional concepts, not substantive ones.

copied message begins:

I think everyone needs to calm down trolling and think about the salient issues of contention here in a legal sense.

A bit of background, i'm studying for my phd in the law faculty at oxford and i have spoken to a specialist on property and the meaning of property as well as a judge who is an old friend at the international criminal court and a barrister who specialises in money laundering.

Now, the person is not an idiot. What is at issue here is the legal definition of what bit coins are.

There are two ways this can be established, firstly, through an emergency act of parliament, secondly, through a test case brought by the CPS to see whether or not bitcoin can be interpreted as fitting under an existing law.

You all operate on a folk misconception of law and ownership as if it is based on statute. Further, you all DECIDE what bitcoins are (your interpretation) and then make an argument on the basis of this (for example a previous poster who talks about the laws relating to cash in Germany). This is mere speculation. None of us have any idea how this might play out if a test case were brought or if an act of parliament was passed. Even legal professionals at the top of their game can only speculate. It is simply unknowable before the process is followed, though educated guesses can be made.

I know in the UK at least we have a common law system, which means that even something like bitcoin can come under the purview of an extant statute if this is deemed reasonable by a judge, a jury, or the lords (depending on the nature of the test case).

Now, it rests on a political or legal decision to classify bitcoin in a particular way. If the UK government came out today, or if a judge passed a ruling tomorrow, that stated that bitcoins were a good, not a unit of exchange, and furthermore that they are a good that can be owned in the sense of any other good, it would be the case that if you could follow your bitcoins from MtGox to another account on the blockchain you would be able to have an injunction served to freeze those assets, which could mean confiscating the server that the bitcoin is currently stored on. I am speaking specifically if these bitcoins have been passed through shill addresses (which seems to be the case) that exist only to throw people off the trail. Of course, if they go into an account already full of bitcoins and then leave again, it is more difficult if not impossible (again, depending on specifics) to trace *your* bitcoin. If however, they enter into an account before being split into a tiny transaction and a large transaction, and you follow these transactions to a residing address, than you can most certainly say that they are your bitcoins, your property, and take legal steps to have these recovered. Providing these bitcoins are held on a server, an injunction could be issued to freeze access to that account or failing that to confiscate the server (in the same way that you can confiscate a car containing stolen goods even if the majority of goods in the car are not stolen). If these bitcoins have gone offline, a warrant could be issued to find out which physical address was using an IP at the time that they took them offline (providing of course that these details are stored).

I am an idiot for storing my coins in Gox. And I am idiot for being so negligent and lazy. But it would seem that there is a prima facie case to answer here. When I follow the transactions from Gox it is very obvious that they have been sent through a rudimentary system that attempts to hide their final destination. The co-ordination of transaction times, the correspondence of amounts, all makes this very obvious. The notion that you cannot own a bitcoin, that bitcoins are not property, that bitcoins are like cash and should be treated so, is all pure speculation. Having spoken to as I said to a barrister who specialises in the idea of property and how property is defined, there is certainly a chance that if someone brought a case against say, an exchange or wallet service that was owning the funds, that a good barrister could set a precedent defining bitcoin as a particular kind of good. If bitcoins were defined in this way, they would be subject to the usual legal procedures to recover them, i.e. the assets would be frozen or seized whilst a legal process was undertaken.

A good analogy in the UK is the problem with the theft of copper. Previously, the problem was that copper, like bitcoin, was a commodity (i'm not making a claim here, please proceed for the sake of argument) which could be mixed up with other copper, it could be melted down and reformed into new things, and it became impossible to distinguish which bit of copper belonged to who. Now, however, they have a copper marking system, which means that even if copper is melted down and reformed into something new, it bears a trace that identifies it to its rightful owner. The copper is seized or the assets frozen and as soon as proof is established that you the rightful owner, it is returned.

I understand that for some of these bitcoins they will have entered into very large addresses and thus it becomes very difficult to follow the trail. But if you can show beyond reasonable doubt that the bitcoins were taken from your account and belong to you, like for example if it is the case that the coins have been split into shill addresses but it's very clear that this was a diversionary tactic and now they are rested in amounts of around 3 bitcoins in numerous addresses, that is at least enough evidence to have the assets seized or frozen pending an investigation.

As I said, this depends on either parliament taking action or the CPS or an ambitious young lawyer bringing a test case to attempt to classify bitcoin under existing law. But it is not some fantasy. It is not idiotic. In fact, what is idiotic are these uninformed ramblings of people who have no idea about political or legal process. I accept that this is unlikely to happen, but it is not an avenue to be dismissed. The sums involved are so large that there is clearly a public interest in the CPS bringing such a case. I am also meeting with my local MP tomorrow who I hope will bring an early day motion to parliament. Everyone here has an idea of what bitcoin is, but no-one, not even the top legal professionals, know how this might play out in a legal or political setting. So wind your necks in folks, and before insulting and trolling people, at least take some time to consider their argument. In the end you may be right, govt might not care, CPS might be unwilling to bring a test case, and departments are not going to take on this huge burden on their resources without being directed from the centre (exactly as we saw in japan, a declaration it was nothing to do with them followed by an assurance from the governments that ministries will be involved and investigations will occur).

Everyone keeps spewing out this libertarian nonsense, oh bitcoin is free from the government, we shouldn't intervene (forgetting of course where all the technology it runs on started on, in HUGE public projects, the internet itself, for example, coming from the US military —hardly free from government). But there has been no collective action. Big exchanges knew what was going on and kept customers in the dark. There is no sympathy but harshness, malice and callousness. When a lot of people look at this mud slinging, you know what they thing? This is exactly why we NEED government and regulation, this lot couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery, they couldn't decide how to make a cup of tea, never mind to participate collectively in that thing we call society. Ironically, the response of the bitcoin community is a massive argument in favour of an independent body that regulates contractual relationships between individuals. That's what a government is. The longer the bitcoin community fails to come up with collective action to at least aid and assist depositors, the more people in desperation will turn to what is familiar to them. I lost a modest sum, easy come easy go. Some people have lost their life savings. Sure, it was a bad move. Yes, it was stupid. But that does not make them to blame. It makes them complicit, which is a different thing altogether. No options should be dismissed, all should be pursued. And if this libertarian thing is ever going to work, it has to work now, in crisis. The bitcoin community could easily guarantee at least 50% of gox deposits, for example, through donations, whilst at the same time ridding the community of the stain that was gox. Punishing gox and punishing the people who use it, many of whom remember were early adopters who BELIEVED in this thing, are different things and must be seperated.