4 ms·

It's not that the police liquidated the BTC, it's that the argument that was made in court was for the current cash value of the BTC. Instead of arguing that th

It's not that the police liquidated the BTC, it's that the argument that was made in court was for the current cash value of the BTC. Instead of arguing that the value of the crime was 36 bitcoin the prosecutor argued that if was $137000 which was equivalent at the time. One interesting consequence is that the drug dealer would have had to pay the difference if bitcoin had dropped in value instead of rising.

elcritch 5y ago
As an American it's a bit surprising to me that Sweden actually follows the quaint notion of justice and rule of law. Sounds like they even require property taken to be specifically listed and related to a crime as proven in a court of law. In the US authorities would've likely been able to keep all the BTC, and also could've seized the drug dealers home and car if they had any. In Florida (and many other states) it was/is common practice that any excuse police made could be used to seize almost any of a person's property, essentially on the spot. Generally without even needing to arrest the person or charge them with a crime or get a warrant. Just based on "suspicion" on the cops behalf. Thank good Ole "rule of law" President Reagan and the war on drugs for that one. See: - https://cplaw-miami.com/police-seize-your-property-without-arrest/ https://cplaw-miami.com/police-seize-your-property-without-a... - https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/1/16686014/phillip-parhamovich-civil-forfeiture https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/1/16686014/p... - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Crime_Control_Act_of_1984 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Crime_Control_...
- danuker 5y ago
  > Just based on "suspicion" on the cops behalf. It's fine, the dog jumped at the window of your stopped car. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detection_dog#Civil_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detection_dog#Civil_rights
zaarn 5y ago
I don't think the dealer would have to pay the difference in value if it lost value. Otherwise, you'd have to pay for the loss in value of a seized car if it's sold only years later or the loss in value of gold bars seized if the market on those crashed in the meantime.
- viceroyalbean 5y ago
  I don't see why the drug dealer would get the money back if it gained value but not have to pay the difference if it lost value. Presumably the prosecutor/court's handling of other assets is different which is why it's stated in the article that education about cryptocurrencies is needed. Another possibility is that this really only arises as a result of the fact that the drug dealer received payment in bitcoin whereas it's less likely a drug dealer would be paid in gold or cars.
  - zaarn 5y ago
    Well, simple really. The state seized X $ of assets from you and notes as such. After 6 months, they finally get to auction it off, it is now worth X + Y $. Since the state seized X $ of assets, they ought to give back the Y $. They got what they wanted as they have seized X $ not X + Y $. If the assets are now worth X - Y $ (Y <= X) then nothing happens, as the state has seized the amount X from you already. They got what they wanted back then and that it is worth less is not your fault.

elcritch 5y ago

As an American it's a bit surprising to me that Sweden actually follows the quaint notion of justice and rule of law. Sounds like they even require property taken to be specifically listed and related to a crime as proven in a court of law. In the US authorities would've likely been able to keep all the BTC, and also could've seized the drug dealers home and car if they had any. In Florida (and many other states) it was/is common practice that any excuse police made could be used to seize almost any of a person's property, essentially on the spot. Generally without even needing to arrest the person or charge them with a crime or get a warrant. Just based on "suspicion" on the cops behalf. Thank good Ole "rule of law" President Reagan and the war on drugs for that one. See: - https://cplaw-miami.com/police-seize-your-property-without-arrest/ https://cplaw-miami.com/police-seize-your-property-without-a... - https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/1/16686014/phillip-parhamovich-civil-forfeiture https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/1/16686014/p... - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Crime_Control_Act_of_1984 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Crime_Control_...

danuker 5y ago
> Just based on "suspicion" on the cops behalf. It's fine, the dog jumped at the window of your stopped car. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detection_dog#Civil_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detection_dog#Civil_rights

zaarn 5y ago

I don't think the dealer would have to pay the difference in value if it lost value. Otherwise, you'd have to pay for the loss in value of a seized car if it's sold only years later or the loss in value of gold bars seized if the market on those crashed in the meantime.

viceroyalbean 5y ago
I don't see why the drug dealer would get the money back if it gained value but not have to pay the difference if it lost value. Presumably the prosecutor/court's handling of other assets is different which is why it's stated in the article that education about cryptocurrencies is needed. Another possibility is that this really only arises as a result of the fact that the drug dealer received payment in bitcoin whereas it's less likely a drug dealer would be paid in gold or cars.
- zaarn 5y ago
  Well, simple really. The state seized X $ of assets from you and notes as such. After 6 months, they finally get to auction it off, it is now worth X + Y $. Since the state seized X $ of assets, they ought to give back the Y $. They got what they wanted as they have seized X $ not X + Y $. If the assets are now worth X - Y $ (Y <= X) then nothing happens, as the state has seized the amount X from you already. They got what they wanted back then and that it is worth less is not your fault.