I had NOT previously read through the charges document. I understand that in order to get this past a judge, prosecutors need plea evidence specific enough, that if true, would be a
prima facie case of a violation of the law. However, if the matter goes to court, they have to prove all of the applicable alleged facts are in fact true and would arise to a violation of the law, and mitigating factors are NOT sufficient in order for a jury to find that Shrem had criminal intent. Even glancing over count four, I cannot tell whether Shrem is some kind of evil guy acting with bad intentions - that he knowingly was engaged in some kind of joint operation with BTCKing. Surely, when Shrem was dealing with millions of dollars; probably, it would have been advisable to receive legal consultation concerning his actions. I thought that Shrem was attempting to run a legitimate bitcoin business, but maybe he got too involved. Also, there may be some mitigating circumstances also that could let Shrem off the charges b/c Shrem was NO longer engaged in business relations with BTC King between late 2012 into 2013.
The issue is not whether Shrem is innocent or not, but what is sensible policy for a Foundation or other people who wish for bitcoin to succeed. Like in the case of MtGOX, it seems that people cannot separate personal friendships from the promotion of bitcoin; almost if "bitcoin" was a specific group of people, rather than a computing/economics project.
Who is to say? I would imagine that members of the board of the bitcoin foundation are quite attached to Shrem.. From my understanding, they are NOT unified in their opinion about whether to associate with him or whether they should help him or associate with him. I heard an interview with Shrem, and he was a point person between the bitcoin foundation and GOX and the bitcoin foundation was involved in working with GOX. Shrem may have access to information to which other bitcoin foundation members do NOT have access. And, there is some utility in that.
Karplees and Shrem are NOT the same people. Accordingly, Karpeles may have irritated bitcoin foundation members more b/c he was engaging in activity that seemed to be more damaging to bitcoin as a whole - even though Karpeles has NOT been brought up on any charges, yet.
Surely, these are recent evolving developments, and we do NOT know (at least I do NOT know) the level upon which members of the bitcoin foundation had personal relations with either Karpeles or Shrem, and surely it is possible that the bitcoin may take a vote and take an official position to support or to distance themselves from either Karpeles or Shrem.