3 ms·
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
by 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 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.