The point seems to be that the court would actually have to order you to release the funds, as opposed to the current case where law enforcement can seize physi

The point seems to be that the court would actually have to order you to release the funds, as opposed to the current case where law enforcement can seize physical funds without a court order, putting the burden on you to get it back if the seizure wasn't justified. The court reference you replied to is saying that the court system protects you from having a state actor use force to take your property before you've had your day in court. ETA: That said, I don't think you need anonymity for this, so it would apply to any currency you can use as cash and secure with a password. I guess the anonymity just makes it more like physical cash in that nobody can track how much or where you spend/receive it. For tax purposes, it would be no different from cash in terms of ability to work under the table and be called on it or accused of it by the IRS.