4 ms·

The entire point of money laundering is to convert ill-gotten money into seemingly legitimate assets. It's not like they offered Espinoza dirty cash that he wou

The entire point of money laundering is to convert ill-gotten money into seemingly legitimate assets. It's not like they offered Espinoza dirty cash that he would buy for cents on the dollar with clean cash. He didn't channel their cash through legitimate business channels to obfuscate its history. He engaged in nothing resembling money laundering. This was a man who sold a commodity. Replace Bitcoin with literally anything else. If Espinoza sold them $30,000 of frozen orange juice concentrate, who cares if they're going to trade that for stolen Russian credit cards? In no way is he facilitating money laundering in either scenario.

blackbagboys 10y ago
Actually, the government invests quite a lot of time and resources in prosecuting people who facilitate money-laundering through the purchase and sale of commodities (look up "trade based money laundering").
icebraining 10y ago
Yeah, even if he sold, say, Euros, how would it be laundering? It's amazing this even got to court. And apparently, another guy during the same operation was charged and sentenced to five years probation for unlicensed money transmission: http://www.coindesk.com/judge-orders-localbitcoins-user-to-educate-police-on-digital-currency/ http://www.coindesk.com/judge-orders-localbitcoins-user-to-e...
- frank_jaeger 10y ago
  I'm not sure exactly what you're implying. Are you suggesting Espinoza was laundering? Or currency exchange is money laundering? That his buddy had to cop to a plea deal with overzealous prosecutors is unfortunate, but in no way changes Espinoza's case.
- tim333 10y ago
  Laundering is usually "the concealment of the origins of illegally obtained money." That could apply to swapping for euros or whatever. It's whether you are doing it to conceal the origins that is important.
- CoryG89 10y ago
  Yeah, I think they messed this up. In my view they could have charged him with money laundering if they could have proven that the bitcoins he was using were purchased with illicitly obtained funds. The laundering would have taken place when the bitcoins were purchased, not when they were sold.
reviseddamage 10y ago
>He engaged in nothing resembling money laundering I happen to know what money laundering is, being a certified money laundering specialist (CAMS) and all, and what he allegedly engaged in was money laundering. However, the judge was being completely fair in her statement as the prosecution did a lot of flippity flop and kept switching back the defendant's position from what is a business and a payment instrument seller. This was a relatively easy case to win for the prosecution, but pretty astounding as to how a very ill prepared prosecution and well prepared defense can go a long way.
- jperras 10y ago
  > I happen to know what money laundering is, being a certified money laundering specialist (CAMS) and all One would hope that you are, in fact, a Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist, since what you initially labeled yourself as implies that you routinely engage in illegal activites.
  - reviseddamage 10y ago
    :) thanks, careless typing. it is in fact anti-money laundering.
- guiambros 10y ago
  I'm not following the logic here. Let's say person X has lots of bitcoins (potentially mined from the early days, when it was very easy to obtain). They go and sell it for $30,000, in cash. Let's assume X has the intention to declare the gains in their upcoming tax returns. Why this would be money laundering? Basically X is selling a property in the form of a mathematical equation, that was obtained legally. Of course they'll have to pay taxes like in any other profit-generating transaction, but other than that I'm failing in seeing the issue. ps: it seems that in this case they were trying to entice the guy with stolen credit cards. As that didn't work, they tried switching to money laundering.
  - reviseddamage 10y ago
    >Let's say person X has lots of bitcoins (potentially mined from the early days, when it was very easy to obtain). They go and sell it for $30,000, in cash. Let's assume X has the intention to declare the gains in their upcoming tax returns. it's not what's happening here. i haven't seen where that was implied either. >it seems that in this case they were trying to entice the guy with stolen credit cards. As that didn't work, they tried switching to money laundering. no, they didn't entice him stolen credit cards, they, undercover, purported the sale of bitcoins/cash to him for the purpose of laundering the proceeds of the crime ( stolen credit card). Therefore, if he engaged in that sale knowingly, he willingly engaged in the laundering of proceeds of crime, i.e: money laundering. What they were weak or unable to demonstrate substantially was that his transactions thus far before the sting, were largely derived in the operations of aiding and abetting the laundering of the proceeds of crime.
cloudjacker 10y ago
woah woah woah you are trying to make too much sense here. Florida's money laundering statute wasn't any where as clear cut, and the judge recognized that and dismissed the case. Honestly the part about bitcoin itself is a red herring.

blackbagboys 10y ago

Actually, the government invests quite a lot of time and resources in prosecuting people who facilitate money-laundering through the purchase and sale of commodities (look up "trade based money laundering").

icebraining 10y ago

Yeah, even if he sold, say, Euros, how would it be laundering? It's amazing this even got to court. And apparently, another guy during the same operation was charged and sentenced to five years probation for unlicensed money transmission: http://www.coindesk.com/judge-orders-localbitcoins-user-to-educate-police-on-digital-currency/ http://www.coindesk.com/judge-orders-localbitcoins-user-to-e...

frank_jaeger 10y ago
I'm not sure exactly what you're implying. Are you suggesting Espinoza was laundering? Or currency exchange is money laundering? That his buddy had to cop to a plea deal with overzealous prosecutors is unfortunate, but in no way changes Espinoza's case.
tim333 10y ago
Laundering is usually "the concealment of the origins of illegally obtained money." That could apply to swapping for euros or whatever. It's whether you are doing it to conceal the origins that is important.
CoryG89 10y ago
Yeah, I think they messed this up. In my view they could have charged him with money laundering if they could have proven that the bitcoins he was using were purchased with illicitly obtained funds. The laundering would have taken place when the bitcoins were purchased, not when they were sold.

reviseddamage 10y ago

>He engaged in nothing resembling money laundering I happen to know what money laundering is, being a certified money laundering specialist (CAMS) and all, and what he allegedly engaged in was money laundering. However, the judge was being completely fair in her statement as the prosecution did a lot of flippity flop and kept switching back the defendant's position from what is a business and a payment instrument seller. This was a relatively easy case to win for the prosecution, but pretty astounding as to how a very ill prepared prosecution and well prepared defense can go a long way.

jperras 10y ago
> I happen to know what money laundering is, being a certified money laundering specialist (CAMS) and all One would hope that you are, in fact, a Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist, since what you initially labeled yourself as implies that you routinely engage in illegal activites.
- reviseddamage 10y ago
  :) thanks, careless typing. it is in fact anti-money laundering.
guiambros 10y ago
I'm not following the logic here. Let's say person X has lots of bitcoins (potentially mined from the early days, when it was very easy to obtain). They go and sell it for $30,000, in cash. Let's assume X has the intention to declare the gains in their upcoming tax returns. Why this would be money laundering? Basically X is selling a property in the form of a mathematical equation, that was obtained legally. Of course they'll have to pay taxes like in any other profit-generating transaction, but other than that I'm failing in seeing the issue. ps: it seems that in this case they were trying to entice the guy with stolen credit cards. As that didn't work, they tried switching to money laundering.
- reviseddamage 10y ago
  >Let's say person X has lots of bitcoins (potentially mined from the early days, when it was very easy to obtain). They go and sell it for $30,000, in cash. Let's assume X has the intention to declare the gains in their upcoming tax returns. it's not what's happening here. i haven't seen where that was implied either. >it seems that in this case they were trying to entice the guy with stolen credit cards. As that didn't work, they tried switching to money laundering. no, they didn't entice him stolen credit cards, they, undercover, purported the sale of bitcoins/cash to him for the purpose of laundering the proceeds of the crime ( stolen credit card). Therefore, if he engaged in that sale knowingly, he willingly engaged in the laundering of proceeds of crime, i.e: money laundering. What they were weak or unable to demonstrate substantially was that his transactions thus far before the sting, were largely derived in the operations of aiding and abetting the laundering of the proceeds of crime.

cloudjacker 10y ago

woah woah woah you are trying to make too much sense here. Florida's money laundering statute wasn't any where as clear cut, and the judge recognized that and dismissed the case. Honestly the part about bitcoin itself is a red herring.