5 ms·

Not sure how the bitcoin part is relevant. AFAIK it's not a currency even if it wants to be. So same problems and rules should apply to other trading as well.

by yason 8y ago

Not sure how the bitcoin part is relevant. AFAIK it's not a currency even if it wants to be. So same problems and rules should apply to other trading as well. What if he had been dealing cars instead of bitcoin? A guy comes in, buys a car in cash, drives away. You use the cash to buy more cars, wait for the next guy. You pocket the diff between how much you pay and how much you ask. How do you know the money isn't from a drug dealer? How do you know you're not engaging in illegal money transmission or receiving money from drug traficking? I'd even say cars are more widely accepted than bitcoin are. Maybe bitcoin wasn't relevant but the article just failed to emphasize that point.

seibelj 8y ago
There exists a cottage industry of individuals acting as money changers for bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. It can be quite lucrative. This is (was?) a gray market, but judgements like this show the government considers it a black market. What’s interesting to me is that they didn’t simply nail her for buying and selling bitcoin without a money transmitters license. They also used the undercover agent to explicitly say it was drug money, ensuring worse penalties.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  >What’s interesting to me is that they didn’t simply nail her for buying and selling bitcoin without a money transmitters license. They also used the undercover agent to explicitly say it was drug money, ensuring worse penalties. Creating crime to catch crime is pretty par for the course in federal investigations. The FBI is pretty well known to do it in terrorism cases. The ATF runs their botched illegal gun buying operations that create local crime.
  - Nasrudith 8y ago
    I wonder how often the cops get called on the FBI. I know that there was the post 9-11 clownish thing with an FBI informant in a mosque who got banned and reported to the FBI because he was a frothing radical that they wanted absolutely nothing to do with.
- yason 8y ago
  But since when bitcoin has been "money" as acknowledged to any official sense? As far as I can tell, it hasn't. That was my point: if bitcoin isn't currency or money then it's just trading bitcoins like trading any goods, be it fur, cars, or other supplies. So the case really isn't about bitcoin but someone who took money from illegal sources and washed it clean. And didn't report that income, obviously. That's fine. The interesting part would be to have in prosecution something bitcoin related that doesn't apply to other goods. And in that case it would be interesting to see why the same would not a problem if the parties were trading something else than bitcoin.
JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> What if he had been dealing cars instead of bitcoin? If you sell a car to someone knowing they paid with cash earned from dealing drugs, and then you proceed to not report that income, yes, it would be illegal. The unique role of Bitcoin appears to be sociological. The case with cars is highly infrequent. Swap cars with Bitcoin, however, and people seem to think it’s okay.
- mhluongo 8y ago
  Those two things are regulated quite differently.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

by yason 8y ago

seibelj 8y ago

There exists a cottage industry of individuals acting as money changers for bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. It can be quite lucrative. This is (was?) a gray market, but judgements like this show the government considers it a black market. What’s interesting to me is that they didn’t simply nail her for buying and selling bitcoin without a money transmitters license. They also used the undercover agent to explicitly say it was drug money, ensuring worse penalties.

dsfyu404ed 8y ago
>What’s interesting to me is that they didn’t simply nail her for buying and selling bitcoin without a money transmitters license. They also used the undercover agent to explicitly say it was drug money, ensuring worse penalties. Creating crime to catch crime is pretty par for the course in federal investigations. The FBI is pretty well known to do it in terrorism cases. The ATF runs their botched illegal gun buying operations that create local crime.
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  I wonder how often the cops get called on the FBI. I know that there was the post 9-11 clownish thing with an FBI informant in a mosque who got banned and reported to the FBI because he was a frothing radical that they wanted absolutely nothing to do with.
yason 8y ago
But since when bitcoin has been "money" as acknowledged to any official sense? As far as I can tell, it hasn't. That was my point: if bitcoin isn't currency or money then it's just trading bitcoins like trading any goods, be it fur, cars, or other supplies. So the case really isn't about bitcoin but someone who took money from illegal sources and washed it clean. And didn't report that income, obviously. That's fine. The interesting part would be to have in prosecution something bitcoin related that doesn't apply to other goods. And in that case it would be interesting to see why the same would not a problem if the parties were trading something else than bitcoin.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> What if he had been dealing cars instead of bitcoin? If you sell a car to someone knowing they paid with cash earned from dealing drugs, and then you proceed to not report that income, yes, it would be illegal. The unique role of Bitcoin appears to be sociological. The case with cars is highly infrequent. Swap cars with Bitcoin, however, and people seem to think it’s okay.

mhluongo 8y ago
Those two things are regulated quite differently.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]