3 ms·

Yes, but they didn't hack into the wallet. They basically found the person who was in-charge of the wallet and forced their hand (read: civil forfeiture) in ord

Yes, but they didn't hack into the wallet. They basically found the person who was in-charge of the wallet and forced their hand (read: civil forfeiture) in order to gain access to the bitcoin.

TuringNYC 6y ago
the article says: "In the civil forfeiture complaint, Anderson explained that the government took control of the wallet on Monday, after an unnamed hacker agreed to forfeit the cryptocurrency." It wasn't clear how the "agreement" was reached and what coersion was involved.
colinmhayes 6y ago
I'm not sure civil forfeiture is the right term for what happened here. I don't think the government can compel individual x to give them the wallet's key. Unless they found the key laying around I'd say they likely they built a case against them and used that to get them to trade the billion dollars in exchange for dropping the case.
- cmauniada 6y ago
  Thanks for the correction.
- nullc 6y ago
  That would be my assumption, but I'm confused: The statute of limitations would have expired already for the crimes they mention in their court filings.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    Some actions can extend the statute of limitations. In almost all states, fleeing the jurisdiction pauses the statute of limitations for the duration the suspect is not in the state. (Some states consider leaving the jurisdiction to be the same as fleeing, even if the intent was not to avoid criminal charges.) Concealment is also generally grounds for tolling the statute. And in some states, if criminal acts are related, the statute for the entire body of crimes doesn't begin until the last related criminal act. See for a breakdown by state: https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/time-limits-for-charges-state-criminal-statutes-of-limitations.html https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/time-limits...
- gamblor956 6y ago
  I don't think the government can compel individual x to give them the wallet's key. In the U.S., they can compel someone to provide a password if doing so would not violate the owner's Constitutional rights (such as, for example, if it would be self-incriminatory). Courts in the U.S. have different thresholds at when that line is crossed, but a bright line rule is that providing a password is not self-incriminatory if the criminal case has already been litigated to its conclusion (i.e., the suspect has either been found or plead guilty, or was found not-guilty and double-jeopardy protections apply).

Yes, but they didn't hack into the wallet. They basically found the person who was in-charge of the wallet and forced their hand (read: civil forfeiture) in order to gain access to the bitcoin.

TuringNYC 6y ago

the article says: "In the civil forfeiture complaint, Anderson explained that the government took control of the wallet on Monday, after an unnamed hacker agreed to forfeit the cryptocurrency." It wasn't clear how the "agreement" was reached and what coersion was involved.

colinmhayes 6y ago

I'm not sure civil forfeiture is the right term for what happened here. I don't think the government can compel individual x to give them the wallet's key. Unless they found the key laying around I'd say they likely they built a case against them and used that to get them to trade the billion dollars in exchange for dropping the case.

cmauniada 6y ago
Thanks for the correction.
nullc 6y ago
That would be my assumption, but I'm confused: The statute of limitations would have expired already for the crimes they mention in their court filings.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  Some actions can extend the statute of limitations. In almost all states, fleeing the jurisdiction pauses the statute of limitations for the duration the suspect is not in the state. (Some states consider leaving the jurisdiction to be the same as fleeing, even if the intent was not to avoid criminal charges.) Concealment is also generally grounds for tolling the statute. And in some states, if criminal acts are related, the statute for the entire body of crimes doesn't begin until the last related criminal act. See for a breakdown by state: https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/time-limits-for-charges-state-criminal-statutes-of-limitations.html https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/time-limits...
gamblor956 6y ago
I don't think the government can compel individual x to give them the wallet's key. In the U.S., they can compel someone to provide a password if doing so would not violate the owner's Constitutional rights (such as, for example, if it would be self-incriminatory). Courts in the U.S. have different thresholds at when that line is crossed, but a bright line rule is that providing a password is not self-incriminatory if the criminal case has already been litigated to its conclusion (i.e., the suspect has either been found or plead guilty, or was found not-guilty and double-jeopardy protections apply).