3 ms·

Yes. It makes sense if you think of it as debt - he had a debt of $137000 and they had seized assets to cover the debt. The assets covered more than the debt so

Yes. It makes sense if you think of it as debt - he had a debt of $137000 and they had seized assets to cover the debt. The assets covered more than the debt so the remainder was paid back. If the assets hadn't covered the debt he would have had to cover it separately.

agency 5y ago
But why would it be a debt? They stripped him of the proceeds of the drug deals: 36 bitcoins. Why is the cash value of those bitcoins at the time of seizure relevant? If they had seized his car, and it depreciated between when they seized and auctioned it, does he owe them the difference too? Why should the legal system treat seized assets as equivalent monetary value debts?
- viceroyalbean 5y ago
  It's a debt because the way the legal system carried out stripping him of his earnings was to give him a fine equal to the value of the BTC at the time. This was of course a mistake which is why this whole thing blew up, but in practice that's how it was handled.
  - xmprt 5y ago
    It seems wrong to both seize the assets and then also force the defendant to pay a debt from those assets. If bitcoin goes down then they would be on the hook for a massive amount of money that they don't have. I doubt the defendant would be able to tell the prosecutors to sell the assets if, say, bitcoin crashed last year.
    - viceroyalbean 5y ago
      Absolutely, but it also seems wrong that assets gained through criminal activities are now being paid out completely clean to the convicted criminal. As the prosecutor is quoted saying in the article it's a mistake to convert a variable value asset into a fixed price, especially when Swedish government inefficiency leads to the asset being liquidated 2 years later.
      - yarky 5y ago
        > it also seems wrong that assets gained through criminal activities are now being paid out completely clean to the convicted criminal. That's the key indeed. I think I get it now! Anyway, the simple thing would be counting btc if btc is confiscated and counting cars if cars are confiscated. Then I don't see how it could blow up, but I guess it just can't be that simple.

agency 5y ago

But why would it be a debt? They stripped him of the proceeds of the drug deals: 36 bitcoins. Why is the cash value of those bitcoins at the time of seizure relevant? If they had seized his car, and it depreciated between when they seized and auctioned it, does he owe them the difference too? Why should the legal system treat seized assets as equivalent monetary value debts?

viceroyalbean 5y ago
It's a debt because the way the legal system carried out stripping him of his earnings was to give him a fine equal to the value of the BTC at the time. This was of course a mistake which is why this whole thing blew up, but in practice that's how it was handled.
- xmprt 5y ago
  It seems wrong to both seize the assets and then also force the defendant to pay a debt from those assets. If bitcoin goes down then they would be on the hook for a massive amount of money that they don't have. I doubt the defendant would be able to tell the prosecutors to sell the assets if, say, bitcoin crashed last year.
  - viceroyalbean 5y ago
    Absolutely, but it also seems wrong that assets gained through criminal activities are now being paid out completely clean to the convicted criminal. As the prosecutor is quoted saying in the article it's a mistake to convert a variable value asset into a fixed price, especially when Swedish government inefficiency leads to the asset being liquidated 2 years later.
    - yarky 5y ago
      > it also seems wrong that assets gained through criminal activities are now being paid out completely clean to the convicted criminal. That's the key indeed. I think I get it now! Anyway, the simple thing would be counting btc if btc is confiscated and counting cars if cars are confiscated. Then I don't see how it could blow up, but I guess it just can't be that simple.