3 ms·

My interpretation of the article is that the court recognized the proceeds in terms of Swedish Kroner at the time that the BTC were seized, so was unable to acc

My interpretation of the article is that the court recognized the proceeds in terms of Swedish Kroner at the time that the BTC were seized, so was unable to account for the increasing value of BTC in terms of Kroner - they had not legally seized ~$1.7m, they had legally seized $137,000, and so had to pay back the difference. From the article - "The lesson to be learned from this is to keep the value in bitcoin, that the profit from the crime should be 36 bitcoin, regardless of what value the bitcoin has at the time".

est31 5y ago
In fact it makes it seem the fault of the prosecutor even and not the court. Quotes from the prosecutor from the Telegraph article. > "It has led to consequences I was not able to foresee at the time." > "I think we should probably invest in an internal education in the [prosecution] authority, as cryptocurrency will be a factor we'll be dealing with to a much greater extent than we are today. The more we increase the level of knowledge within the organization, the fewer mistakes we will make." I'm not familiar with the swedish legal system (and not a lawyer), but often you can only be convicted for things the prosecution requests/accuses you of. Otherwise you can't defend yourself in court. So the prosecution ordered the bitcoin to be seized as proceeds of the crime, but not in a correct way, so the court ruling contained the same wording that a specific value in swedish Kronen shall be seized. Had the prosecution demanded the seizure in terms of Bitcoin instead, the court would probably have approved it too. However, at this point it's too late to change the ruling. Courts exist to settle things, and one can't simply re-roll a prosecution case unless there were grave mistakes.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  I think you interpretation is accurate - the prosecution can decide if it's seizing assets or cash, either choice has consequences.

est31 5y ago

In fact it makes it seem the fault of the prosecutor even and not the court. Quotes from the prosecutor from the Telegraph article. > "It has led to consequences I was not able to foresee at the time." > "I think we should probably invest in an internal education in the [prosecution] authority, as cryptocurrency will be a factor we'll be dealing with to a much greater extent than we are today. The more we increase the level of knowledge within the organization, the fewer mistakes we will make." I'm not familiar with the swedish legal system (and not a lawyer), but often you can only be convicted for things the prosecution requests/accuses you of. Otherwise you can't defend yourself in court. So the prosecution ordered the bitcoin to be seized as proceeds of the crime, but not in a correct way, so the court ruling contained the same wording that a specific value in swedish Kronen shall be seized. Had the prosecution demanded the seizure in terms of Bitcoin instead, the court would probably have approved it too. However, at this point it's too late to change the ruling. Courts exist to settle things, and one can't simply re-roll a prosecution case unless there were grave mistakes.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago
I think you interpretation is accurate - the prosecution can decide if it's seizing assets or cash, either choice has consequences.