5 ms·

>they can't prove they weren't the ones who stole it. Proving your innocence is not how the criminal justice system works in the US. If you have stolen goods,

>they can't prove they weren't the ones who stole it. Proving your innocence is not how the criminal justice system works in the US. If you have stolen goods, it's on the government to prove that A) they are stolen B) (and to criminally convict you) that you knew they were stolen

SparkyMcUnicorn 4y ago
When it comes to civil forfeiture, it's pretty much the complete opposite.
colinmhayes 4y ago
This is actually not true. If you have stolen goods the government can and will confiscate them until you prove you got them legally.
zaphar 4y ago
We aren't talking about criminal conviction though. We are talking about something entirely different. We are talking about people freely transacting with people who the government already knows and has convicted of illegal activity. And those people who are freely transacting now have their funds difficult to spend, because because they are inextricably mixed up with illegal funds. It's very hard to argue that you didn't know your funds were inextricably mixed up with those illegal funds because that is the a major purpose of a mixer. Choices like those have consequences. Falling under sanctions is one of them.
- zaphar 4y ago
  Or to put it another way. If you use a mixer you are knowingly helping to launder money. Which is itself a crime.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    By that logic everyone with two brain cells who has worked on an interstate road crew should be imprisoned. Of course you may consider one _knows_ launderers will be helped but have no _intent_ to help them, which may be true of the interstate road crew, bank tellers, or a user of Tornado Cash.
    - zaphar 4y ago
      I don't think you can actually say you have no intent to help them. All of the other uses you mention other than a mixer have perfectly valid uses that don't involve committing a crime. But mixing your money in with illicitly obtained funds with the intention of making it so no one can tell your money apart from the illicit funds is the very definition of money laundering. So no, your analogy doesn't even remotely apply.
      - notch656a 4y ago
        Of course you can say you have no intent. Plenty of people use Tornado Cash to separate one wallet from another without any intention whatsoever to aid in any way illicit activity. Just like the road crew, they know the service will be used for illegal purposes but can have zero intent for it to happen.

SparkyMcUnicorn 4y ago

When it comes to civil forfeiture, it's pretty much the complete opposite.

colinmhayes 4y ago

This is actually not true. If you have stolen goods the government can and will confiscate them until you prove you got them legally.

zaphar 4y ago

We aren't talking about criminal conviction though. We are talking about something entirely different. We are talking about people freely transacting with people who the government already knows and has convicted of illegal activity. And those people who are freely transacting now have their funds difficult to spend, because because they are inextricably mixed up with illegal funds. It's very hard to argue that you didn't know your funds were inextricably mixed up with those illegal funds because that is the a major purpose of a mixer. Choices like those have consequences. Falling under sanctions is one of them.

zaphar 4y ago
Or to put it another way. If you use a mixer you are knowingly helping to launder money. Which is itself a crime.
- notch656a 4y ago
  By that logic everyone with two brain cells who has worked on an interstate road crew should be imprisoned. Of course you may consider one _knows_ launderers will be helped but have no _intent_ to help them, which may be true of the interstate road crew, bank tellers, or a user of Tornado Cash.
  - zaphar 4y ago
    I don't think you can actually say you have no intent to help them. All of the other uses you mention other than a mixer have perfectly valid uses that don't involve committing a crime. But mixing your money in with illicitly obtained funds with the intention of making it so no one can tell your money apart from the illicit funds is the very definition of money laundering. So no, your analogy doesn't even remotely apply.
    - notch656a 4y ago
      Of course you can say you have no intent. Plenty of people use Tornado Cash to separate one wallet from another without any intention whatsoever to aid in any way illicit activity. Just like the road crew, they know the service will be used for illegal purposes but can have zero intent for it to happen.