The Feds claim they've already sold over 3 Million dollars worth. The whom? does anybody know?
If they're smart they sold the coins all over the country via LocalBitcoins.com so they could then arrest all those people for operating an exchange without a license or disregarding AML rules.
That's entrapment. Local cops do that kind of shit all the time, but the Feds at least usually pretend to follow the rules when they could so easily be shown to be actually initiating the "crime" they are prosecuting.
I do not believe that this scenario would legally be considered entrapment.
I've had this conversation with cops several times. Nothing is ever entrapment. OK, Give me an example of what YOU consider entrapment.
A cop is not the person to ask. An officers job is to catch people committing crimes and arrest them. You don't get to scream "entrapment!" and walk away without an arrest. Your lawyer just gets an additional potential defense to get you off.
First two relevant (as in, not yahoo answers) google search results for "entrapment examples" turns up:
http://nationalparalegal.edu/public_documents/courseware_asp_files/criminalLaw/defenses/Entrapment.asphttp://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/entrapment-basics-33987.htmlSome copy and pastes from those sites, for the lazy.
Case Example 1. Mary-Anne Berry is charged with selling illegal drugs to an undercover police officer. Berry testifies that the drugs were for her personal use and that the reason she sold some to the officer is that at a party, the officer falsely said that she wanted some drugs for her mom, who was in a lot of pain. According to Berry, the officer even assured Berry that she wasn't a cop and wasn't setting Berry up. The police officer's actions do not amount to entrapment. Police officers are allowed to tell lies. The officer gave Berry an opportunity to break the law, but the officer did not engage in extreme or overbearing behavior.
Case Example 2. Mary-Anne Berry is charged with selling illegal drugs to an undercover police officer. Berry testifies that, "The drugs were for my personal use. For nearly two weeks, the undercover officer stopped by my apartment and pleaded with me to sell her some of my stash because her mom was extremely sick and needed the drugs for pain relief. I kept refusing. When the officer told me that the drugs would allow her mom to be comfortable for the few days she had left to live, I broke down and sold her some drugs. She immediately arrested me." The undercover agent's repeated entreaties and lies are sufficiently extreme to constitute entrapment and result in a not guilty verdict.
Case Example. Let's say Jim is charged with serving as a lookout during a liquor store robbery carried out by a street gang. Jim claims that Snitch, a neighborhood friend who turned out to be an undercover police officer, entrapped him by telling him that he had to participate in the robbery or Snitch would be unable to protect him from gang retribution. In a state that employs an objective test for entrapment, a jury decides whether Snitch's actions would have induced a normally law-abiding person to participate in the robbery. In a state that employs a subjective test for entrapment, the prosecutor can offer evidence of Jim's predisposition to commit the crime, including that Jim had a lengthy rap sheet and that he was anxious to join the street gang and wanted to prove his mettle by participating in a violent crime. A jury would then decide whether Jim participated in the robbery out of his own willingness to do so, regardless of Snitch's actions.
1) Fred, a law abiding citizen, is walking home from work one afternoon when Wilma, a prostitute, approaches him and offers her services for the price of fifty dollars. Fred has never used the services of a prostitute before, but he decides to give it a try and he takes Wilma up on her offer. Wilma leads Fred to a nearby motel room and, once inside, she identifies herself as an undercover police officer and arrests Fred. In this situation, an entrapment defense will probably not be available to Fred because Fred responded readily to the opportunity to commit this crime. Therefore, although Wilma provided Fred with the opportunity to commit the crime, she did not induce him to do it.
2) Fred, a law abiding citizen, is walking home from work one day when Wilma, a prostitute, approaches him and offers him her services for the price of fifty dollars. Fred tells Wilma he is not interested and continues walking. Over the next several blocks Wilma follows Fred and repeatedly offers her services to him, which Fred repeatedly rejects. However, after a few minutes, Wilma’s repeated offers pique Fred’s curiosity and he decides to give it a try. Wilma then leads Fred to a nearby motel room and once inside she identifies herself as an undercover police officer and arrests Fred. In this case, Fred will have the entrapment defense at his disposal because Wilma repeatedly requested that Fred commit the crime and it was only after several rejections by Fred that Wilma succeeded in getting him to actually commit the crime. Therefore, in this case, Wilma has actually induced Fred, who does not seem to be predisposed to committing this kind of crime, into committing the crime.
Note how the localbitcoins scenario involves no undue pressure to buy, and it would be quite easy to convince a jury that you would have bought those bitcoins regardless of whether you had seen their ad.
). 
. 