5 ms·

A lot of crimes require mens rea, ie. being guilty would require knowing the bitcoins are shady.

ghastmaster 4y ago
While perhaps not criminal, receiving them could subject a person to asset seizure. Usually stolen things are seized whether the receiver knows they are stolen or not. The burden is then on the receiver to persue criminal, or more likely, civil action.
- BizarroLand 4y ago
  So when the bitcoin are traced to a washing service in a location where the FBI has no jurisdiction (so that they cannot go after the washing service), split into individual satoshis and then sent through hundreds of thousands of transactions before being put back into the wild in a format that is completely and totally randomized and then one day months or years later re-enter the FBI's jurisdiction you think that there's a chance in hell that they will be able to identify specifically which individual satoshis are illegal and which ones are not?
  - ghastmaster 4y ago
    If I steal $1,000 and promptly donate $1,000 to charity, it is very likely that that money would be tracked down and returned. On the other hand, if I steal $1,000 and make retail purchases over the course of twelve months less than $5 each, the monies would not be returned from the retailers to the victim of my theft. At that point it is up to the courts(civil and criminal) to force me to make amends to the original victim. Your scenario is similar to the latter example for most of the end recipients. If an account with zero bitcoins receives a stolen bitcoin and sends it to one recipient, that recipient would certainly fall under the first scenario I put forth. As the transactions become more complex and diffuse, the latter scenario is more likely.
rob-olmos 4y ago
And as the media keeps repeating bitcoin is heavily used for illicit & illegal activity so not only bitcoin itself (that none of the jury holds because those that hold it have been excluded, let alone any of them actually understand it) and then probably exchanging with very specific wallets in this case.. probably guilty despite what the defendant has to say for their actions..

While perhaps not criminal, receiving them could subject a person to asset seizure. Usually stolen things are seized whether the receiver knows they are stolen or not. The burden is then on the receiver to persue criminal, or more likely, civil action.

BizarroLand 4y ago
So when the bitcoin are traced to a washing service in a location where the FBI has no jurisdiction (so that they cannot go after the washing service), split into individual satoshis and then sent through hundreds of thousands of transactions before being put back into the wild in a format that is completely and totally randomized and then one day months or years later re-enter the FBI's jurisdiction you think that there's a chance in hell that they will be able to identify specifically which individual satoshis are illegal and which ones are not?
- ghastmaster 4y ago
  If I steal $1,000 and promptly donate $1,000 to charity, it is very likely that that money would be tracked down and returned. On the other hand, if I steal $1,000 and make retail purchases over the course of twelve months less than $5 each, the monies would not be returned from the retailers to the victim of my theft. At that point it is up to the courts(civil and criminal) to force me to make amends to the original victim. Your scenario is similar to the latter example for most of the end recipients. If an account with zero bitcoins receives a stolen bitcoin and sends it to one recipient, that recipient would certainly fall under the first scenario I put forth. As the transactions become more complex and diffuse, the latter scenario is more likely.

rob-olmos 4y ago

And as the media keeps repeating bitcoin is heavily used for illicit & illegal activity so not only bitcoin itself (that none of the jury holds because those that hold it have been excluded, let alone any of them actually understand it) and then probably exchanging with very specific wallets in this case.. probably guilty despite what the defendant has to say for their actions..