4 ms·
>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 w
by 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 agoIt'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 agoSwedish 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 agoI 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 agoSince 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.