3 ms·

You just said it would be obstruction of justice, yet a transaction occurring from a known wallet while a suspect is in custody is not enough to prove that. You

You just said it would be obstruction of justice, yet a transaction occurring from a known wallet while a suspect is in custody is not enough to prove that. You'd have to prove the conspiracy. You're hand-waving the details away in an attempt to dismiss the argument. What does the prosecutor do when the funds get moved and the suspect is under lock and key? Because of the decentralized nature of crypto, you cannot even show who moved the funds. All you know is that they were moved. So if you're a prosecutor, what are you going to show the judge to persuade them that an obstruction of justice has occurred?

jacques_chester 6y ago
Saying "it's math, yerhonner" is itself handwaving. My point is that a court doesn't need to fixate on the crpytographic impossibilities. They can rely on literally any other evidence. They can gladly drag your friends into court to answer questions. Any of your other assets can be seized or frozen. Folks who think cryptocurrencies are magic cheat codes are just not aware of the flexibility and enormous powers that a court has to overwhelm mechanistic attempts to defeat their decisions.
- doggosphere 6y ago
  The defendant doesn't need to say anything, that's the point. The prosecution has to do all the leg work. And they may literally have no other evidence. - Can the prosecution show where and how Mr. X moved the funds while he was in jail? - Can they show who he communicated with or ordered to abscond these funds? - Can they identify who controls the funds now? - Can they identify anyone else who may have had control of these funds while in their previous wallet? - Can the prosecution rule with 100% certainty that this was not a hack or theft by some other party, including police? The answer to those is probably no. Is that enough to convince a judge/jury of reasonable doubt? I'm not a lawyer.

jacques_chester 6y ago

Saying "it's math, yerhonner" is itself handwaving. My point is that a court doesn't need to fixate on the crpytographic impossibilities. They can rely on literally any other evidence. They can gladly drag your friends into court to answer questions. Any of your other assets can be seized or frozen. Folks who think cryptocurrencies are magic cheat codes are just not aware of the flexibility and enormous powers that a court has to overwhelm mechanistic attempts to defeat their decisions.

doggosphere 6y ago
The defendant doesn't need to say anything, that's the point. The prosecution has to do all the leg work. And they may literally have no other evidence. - Can the prosecution show where and how Mr. X moved the funds while he was in jail? - Can they show who he communicated with or ordered to abscond these funds? - Can they identify who controls the funds now? - Can they identify anyone else who may have had control of these funds while in their previous wallet? - Can the prosecution rule with 100% certainty that this was not a hack or theft by some other party, including police? The answer to those is probably no. Is that enough to convince a judge/jury of reasonable doubt? I'm not a lawyer.