3 ms·
> The court order is “hand over the money”, which is hardly an unusual one. I admit I haven't read the court order, but that sounds surprising. A more proport
by dane-pgp 5y ago
> The court order is “hand over the money”, which is hardly an unusual one.
I admit I haven't read the court order, but that sounds surprising. A more proportionate demand would be "don't move the money" (while the court decides who it should belong to), and I don't see how the government benefits from having the money in escrow, unless they fear the user is a flight risk, in which case they should have jailed him too.
If the money is actually being permanently forfeited because it has been proven to be part of a crime (rather than just potentially being used in the future to support a crime) then I would expect not just a court order but some sort of verdict proving the existence of the crime.
- rosndo 5y ago> I don't see how the government benefits from having the money in escrow How do you think the government would deal with a pile of cash? > unless they fear the user is a flight risk, in which case they should have jailed him too. It’s possible that the government has cause to seize the money without anyone having committed a crime worthy of a custodial sentence. Perhaps he’s only a credible flight risk while in possession of 1M+ USD worth of cryptocurrency? Arresting someone when you could instead just take possession of their money seems downright cruel.