3 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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 agoWell, 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.