3 ms·

> Ruiz’s income was too low for him to have that much money, and his side business selling bongs made from liquor bottles suggested he was an unlicensed pot dea

> Ruiz’s income was too low for him to have that much money, and his side business selling bongs made from liquor bottles suggested he was an unlicensed pot dealer And he could have put $30 in Dogecoin 6 years ago and had $60,000 by the time of seizure. Or $30 in a random token this year like NFT-art.finance and made the same. https://poocoin.app/tokens/0xf7844cb890f4c339c497aeab599abdc3c874b67a https://poocoin.app/tokens/0xf7844cb890f4c339c497aeab599abdc... The government has no control of the money supply and has no basis to assume anyone can't have something by looking at their job and income If this is what they reported to the judge, their whole case should be wrecked and the judiciary should curb stomp the entire practice

wl 5y ago
> And he could have put $30 in Dogecoin 6 years ago and had $60,000 by the time of seizure. Or $30 in a random token this year like NFT-art.finance and made the same. If that cash were the realized gain from such an investment, it'd be reportable income and the FBI would have seen it. What tripped up the FBI here is that the source of the cash was compensatory damages, which was likely claimed as non-taxable and thus not reported.
- vmception 5y ago
  Thanks for the context Doubling down on my point, its not like Dogecoin was traded on Robinhood way back then. The self-reporting wouldn't necessarily say which specific asset. Are you suggesting if the Feds looked at their tax returns and saw a gain at some point in this person's history they would have left them alone and not said "their income is too low and therefore probable cause." Also, I factored in the tax reporting aspect when I was deciding whether to write $30 or $50 as the initial capital, if there was a sale for cash it would be reportable when they file taxes in 2022.
- cascom 5y ago
  I think you’re assuming the FBI made a good faith attempt here, when it’s more likely they cherry picked the facts that helped their arguments, ignoring those that didn’t

wl 5y ago

> And he could have put $30 in Dogecoin 6 years ago and had $60,000 by the time of seizure. Or $30 in a random token this year like NFT-art.finance and made the same. If that cash were the realized gain from such an investment, it'd be reportable income and the FBI would have seen it. What tripped up the FBI here is that the source of the cash was compensatory damages, which was likely claimed as non-taxable and thus not reported.

vmception 5y ago
Thanks for the context Doubling down on my point, its not like Dogecoin was traded on Robinhood way back then. The self-reporting wouldn't necessarily say which specific asset. Are you suggesting if the Feds looked at their tax returns and saw a gain at some point in this person's history they would have left them alone and not said "their income is too low and therefore probable cause." Also, I factored in the tax reporting aspect when I was deciding whether to write $30 or $50 as the initial capital, if there was a sale for cash it would be reportable when they file taxes in 2022.
cascom 5y ago
I think you’re assuming the FBI made a good faith attempt here, when it’s more likely they cherry picked the facts that helped their arguments, ignoring those that didn’t