5 ms·

That just seems like entrapment... Bitcoin to me has always been an intangible asset. If someone is willing to exchange cash for it then that does not mean Bitc

That just seems like entrapment... Bitcoin to me has always been an intangible asset. If someone is willing to exchange cash for it then that does not mean Bitcoin is suddenly cash. I wonder what the government's argument would be if bitcoin were tangible, say bottle caps.

arcticbull 5y ago
I mean the whitepaper is titled a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. [edit] It feels like Scrodinger's asset class. It's a commodity when it's being attacked for being a security. It's a currency when it's attacked for being a commodity. At the end of the day I don't care, if it's good at being laundered then you can call it whatever you want, AML/KYC is going to have to apply. [edit] Further, entrapment is a specific legal construct wherein the government tricks you into committing a crime. If the government comes up and says "hello, do you want to do a crime?" and you say "damn right I do" that's not entrapment, that's just crime.
- salawat 5y ago
  An affirmative defense in which a defendant alleges that police officers acquired the evidence necessary to commence a criminal prosecution of the defendant by inducing the defendant to engage in a criminal act which the defendant would not otherwise have committed. see, e.g. Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540(1992). https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/entrapment https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/entrapment I'm no lawyer, but I'm having trouble from a reading comprehension point of view seeing how this wasn't a to the textbook definition of entrapment.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    Entrapment generally requires coercion. The term you mentioned, inducement, is key. > The key aspect of entrapment is this: Government agents do not entrap defendants simply by offering them an opportunity to commit a crime. Judges expect people to resist any ordinary temptation to violate the law. An entrapment defense arises when government agents resort to repugnant behavior such as the use of threats, harassment, fraud, or even flattery to induce defendants to commit crimes. [1] [1] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/entrapment-basics-33987.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/entrapment-basics-33...
    - salawat 5y ago
      That implies the impact of the law has been understood by the perpetrator. I don't universally buy that ignorance of the law is not an excuse. It took me a very long time to come to understand the full impact of financial services regulations, BSA/AML/KYC. The financial sector is not exactly the most trivial thing to understand. Edit: Also, Inducement: a motive or consideration that leads one to action or to additional or more effective actions In this case, a "simulated drug transactions" proceeds was presented by the Government, thereby bringing all the factors into place for a crime that wouldn't have happened except for the Government having facilitated it. A LICENSED financial institution has the additional burden of being bound by BSA/KYC/AML/registering with FINRA/FINcen. They were not that. You can expect people to shy away from doing anything illegal, yet we have a special caste of people that are hyper specialized in making the determination whether something is conclusively illegal or not. I find this legal axiom to be I'll informed by common sense and life experience, but that's just me.
      - arcticbull 5y ago
        Inducement has a specific legal definition in this context that may not align with the dictionary definition (one of the many reasons nobody should represent themselves). Regardless of opinion here, the US legal system is based on common law, meaning that courts are bound by precedent. The precedent is that the state would have to coerce someone, bribe someone, threaten someone or otherwise compel them to commit a crime they otherwise wouldn't in order to mount this affirmative defense. > In this case, a "simulated drug transactions" proceeds was presented by the Government, thereby bringing all the factors into place for a crime that wouldn't have happened except for the Government having facilitated it. The idea is that the government didn't force you to engage in this activity, you chose to - they merely provided a venue. Therefore you would have chosen to engage in the same way had the government not been that one that afforded you the opportunity. It was your propensity to criminality. Similarly, if the government hands me a gun and asks if I want to shoot someone, then I do, I'm very much still guilty of murder. It's no different in these cases just because the action was more 'white collar.' I would encourage you to check out the comic @papercrane linked: https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=633 https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=633 I'm not a lawyer and I am 100% confident this is not entrapment. > ... yet we have a special caste of people that are hyper specialized in making the determination whether something is conclusively illegal or not. Indeed which is why if I ever start a money services business, I'll be hiring an attorney.
  - papercrane 5y ago
    Police encourage and facilitate crimes all the time in order to make arrests, and it's not entrapment. This comic by a lawyer is a good primer on the subject https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=633 https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=633
- Animats 5y ago
  It feels like Schrodinger's asset class. It's a commodity when it's being attacked for being a security. It's a currency when it's attacked for being a commodity. That kind of reasoning is seen in crypto forums, but it hasn't gone very far in court.
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> wonder what the government's argument would be if bitcoin were tangible, say bottle caps Imagine someone tells you "I am a drug dealer, I have bottle caps I got for selling drugs and would like to launder them through you. Could you help me?" And you respond "Sure." And she comes back saying "it's me again, the drug dealer. Here are my bottle caps. That I got for selling drugs. I need to launder them. Because I got them from selling drugs. Because I'm a drug dealer." [1]. And you give them money for their bottle caps. What do you think will happen? Do you think "but your honor, bottle caps aren't money" will help? [1] Inspired by https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2021-06-21/money-stuff-lordstown-executives-had-good-timing https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2021-06-21/money-...
CRConrad 5y ago
> If someone is willing to exchange cash for it then that does not mean Bitcoin is suddenly cash. So then A) All the fanbois should stop calling these scams cryptocurrencies; and B) Bit"coin" should change its name to something that doesn't sound like it's money.

arcticbull 5y ago

I mean the whitepaper is titled a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. [edit] It feels like Scrodinger's asset class. It's a commodity when it's being attacked for being a security. It's a currency when it's attacked for being a commodity. At the end of the day I don't care, if it's good at being laundered then you can call it whatever you want, AML/KYC is going to have to apply. [edit] Further, entrapment is a specific legal construct wherein the government tricks you into committing a crime. If the government comes up and says "hello, do you want to do a crime?" and you say "damn right I do" that's not entrapment, that's just crime.

salawat 5y ago
An affirmative defense in which a defendant alleges that police officers acquired the evidence necessary to commence a criminal prosecution of the defendant by inducing the defendant to engage in a criminal act which the defendant would not otherwise have committed. see, e.g. Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540(1992). https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/entrapment https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/entrapment I'm no lawyer, but I'm having trouble from a reading comprehension point of view seeing how this wasn't a to the textbook definition of entrapment.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  Entrapment generally requires coercion. The term you mentioned, inducement, is key. > The key aspect of entrapment is this: Government agents do not entrap defendants simply by offering them an opportunity to commit a crime. Judges expect people to resist any ordinary temptation to violate the law. An entrapment defense arises when government agents resort to repugnant behavior such as the use of threats, harassment, fraud, or even flattery to induce defendants to commit crimes. [1] [1] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/entrapment-basics-33987.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/entrapment-basics-33...
  - salawat 5y ago
    That implies the impact of the law has been understood by the perpetrator. I don't universally buy that ignorance of the law is not an excuse. It took me a very long time to come to understand the full impact of financial services regulations, BSA/AML/KYC. The financial sector is not exactly the most trivial thing to understand. Edit: Also, Inducement: a motive or consideration that leads one to action or to additional or more effective actions In this case, a "simulated drug transactions" proceeds was presented by the Government, thereby bringing all the factors into place for a crime that wouldn't have happened except for the Government having facilitated it. A LICENSED financial institution has the additional burden of being bound by BSA/KYC/AML/registering with FINRA/FINcen. They were not that. You can expect people to shy away from doing anything illegal, yet we have a special caste of people that are hyper specialized in making the determination whether something is conclusively illegal or not. I find this legal axiom to be I'll informed by common sense and life experience, but that's just me.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      Inducement has a specific legal definition in this context that may not align with the dictionary definition (one of the many reasons nobody should represent themselves). Regardless of opinion here, the US legal system is based on common law, meaning that courts are bound by precedent. The precedent is that the state would have to coerce someone, bribe someone, threaten someone or otherwise compel them to commit a crime they otherwise wouldn't in order to mount this affirmative defense. > In this case, a "simulated drug transactions" proceeds was presented by the Government, thereby bringing all the factors into place for a crime that wouldn't have happened except for the Government having facilitated it. The idea is that the government didn't force you to engage in this activity, you chose to - they merely provided a venue. Therefore you would have chosen to engage in the same way had the government not been that one that afforded you the opportunity. It was your propensity to criminality. Similarly, if the government hands me a gun and asks if I want to shoot someone, then I do, I'm very much still guilty of murder. It's no different in these cases just because the action was more 'white collar.' I would encourage you to check out the comic @papercrane linked: https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=633 https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=633 I'm not a lawyer and I am 100% confident this is not entrapment. > ... yet we have a special caste of people that are hyper specialized in making the determination whether something is conclusively illegal or not. Indeed which is why if I ever start a money services business, I'll be hiring an attorney.
- papercrane 5y ago
  Police encourage and facilitate crimes all the time in order to make arrests, and it's not entrapment. This comic by a lawyer is a good primer on the subject https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=633 https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=633
Animats 5y ago
It feels like Schrodinger's asset class. It's a commodity when it's being attacked for being a security. It's a currency when it's attacked for being a commodity. That kind of reasoning is seen in crypto forums, but it hasn't gone very far in court.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> wonder what the government's argument would be if bitcoin were tangible, say bottle caps Imagine someone tells you "I am a drug dealer, I have bottle caps I got for selling drugs and would like to launder them through you. Could you help me?" And you respond "Sure." And she comes back saying "it's me again, the drug dealer. Here are my bottle caps. That I got for selling drugs. I need to launder them. Because I got them from selling drugs. Because I'm a drug dealer." [1]. And you give them money for their bottle caps. What do you think will happen? Do you think "but your honor, bottle caps aren't money" will help? [1] Inspired by https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2021-06-21/money-stuff-lordstown-executives-had-good-timing https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2021-06-21/money-...

CRConrad 5y ago

> If someone is willing to exchange cash for it then that does not mean Bitcoin is suddenly cash. So then A) All the fanbois should stop calling these scams cryptocurrencies; and B) Bit"coin" should change its name to something that doesn't sound like it's money.