4 ms·

Reading the story, it appears that the bitcoins were held by the police and only recently were some sold for cash. "But by the time the Swedish Enforcement Aut

by IncRnd 5y ago

Reading the story, it appears that the bitcoins were held by the police and only recently were some sold for cash. "But by the time the Swedish Enforcement Authority began auctioning off the crypto, bitcoin had skyrocketed in value — and only three had to be sold to amount to the value that was booked as the dealer’s profit at the time of his arrest." If the police confiscated everything you owned to cover a fine for $100, isn't it reasonable to get the difference back?

yarky 5y ago
Thank you! I got it wrong because of the negativity of the article. They seem mad because they missed an opportunity to make 1.6M then.
- IncRnd 5y ago
  You're welcome! I know what you mean, though. It's like everyone, even a law enforcement officer, thinks it's okay to scam others, even a drug dealer.
- sellyme 5y ago
  > They seem mad because they missed an opportunity to make 1.6M then. I think it's more that they're mad because someone managed to make and keep 7 figures profit from a crime that they were caught doing purely because the justice system screwed up. It's hard to keep the "crime doesn't pay" messaging when stuff like that happens.
viceroyalbean 5y ago
>If the police confiscated everything you owned to cover a fine for $100, isn't it reasonable to get the difference back? Legally this is correct and exactly what happened. The reason this is becoming an issue is that all the bitcoins that were seized were from selling drugs. The point of the fine is to match the profit of the crime so reasonably it should have taken all of the bitcoin regardless of the underlying value. If he had sold drugs for a gold ring and then the price of gold went up, should he have gotten a bit of the ring back?
- IncRnd 5y ago
  It's not clear from the article that the drug dealer sold drugs for bitcoins. It seems a little more likely that he converted money into bitcoins, and the authorities didn't know how to trace the proceeds through a fungible asset. This is literally the definition of money laundering.
  - viceroyalbean 5y ago
    Swedish sources do state that the bitcoin came from selling drugs. https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/domda-knarklangare-far-mangmiljonbelopp-av-staten https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/domda-knarklangare-far-mang...
    - IncRnd 5y ago
      I don't read Swedish, but the Google translation says, "the police managed to secure 36 bitcoins which, according to the chamber prosecutor, come from the men's drug sales." That seems to be an assertion the prosecutor made, but I see no facts to support that statement. Prosecutors say those sorts of things all the time in order to win cases. Are you saying the prosecutor is correct or that the translation is false?
      - viceroyalbean 5y ago
        Since the court ordered the dealer to pay the equivalent of 36 bitcoins I'm assuming that the court found it well enough established that the bitcoin came from the drug sales.

by IncRnd 5y ago

yarky 5y ago

Thank you! I got it wrong because of the negativity of the article. They seem mad because they missed an opportunity to make 1.6M then.

IncRnd 5y ago
You're welcome! I know what you mean, though. It's like everyone, even a law enforcement officer, thinks it's okay to scam others, even a drug dealer.
sellyme 5y ago
> They seem mad because they missed an opportunity to make 1.6M then. I think it's more that they're mad because someone managed to make and keep 7 figures profit from a crime that they were caught doing purely because the justice system screwed up. It's hard to keep the "crime doesn't pay" messaging when stuff like that happens.

viceroyalbean 5y ago

>If the police confiscated everything you owned to cover a fine for $100, isn't it reasonable to get the difference back? Legally this is correct and exactly what happened. The reason this is becoming an issue is that all the bitcoins that were seized were from selling drugs. The point of the fine is to match the profit of the crime so reasonably it should have taken all of the bitcoin regardless of the underlying value. If he had sold drugs for a gold ring and then the price of gold went up, should he have gotten a bit of the ring back?

IncRnd 5y ago
It's not clear from the article that the drug dealer sold drugs for bitcoins. It seems a little more likely that he converted money into bitcoins, and the authorities didn't know how to trace the proceeds through a fungible asset. This is literally the definition of money laundering.
- viceroyalbean 5y ago
  Swedish sources do state that the bitcoin came from selling drugs. https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/domda-knarklangare-far-mangmiljonbelopp-av-staten https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/domda-knarklangare-far-mang...
  - IncRnd 5y ago
    I don't read Swedish, but the Google translation says, "the police managed to secure 36 bitcoins which, according to the chamber prosecutor, come from the men's drug sales." That seems to be an assertion the prosecutor made, but I see no facts to support that statement. Prosecutors say those sorts of things all the time in order to win cases. Are you saying the prosecutor is correct or that the translation is false?
    - viceroyalbean 5y ago
      Since the court ordered the dealer to pay the equivalent of 36 bitcoins I'm assuming that the court found it well enough established that the bitcoin came from the drug sales.