4 ms·

Law enforcement has no obligation to explain the laws to you.

by kadoban 3y ago

stevev 3y ago
It’s congress’s fault for not defining the rules and for giving the SEC a hammer.
armatav 3y ago
Except when they sue you for it.
- polygamous_bat 3y ago
  They will happily explain it to the judge with you in the room, I believe.
tripplyons 3y ago
I hope some branch of the government gives an explanation.
- kadoban 3y ago
  Ideally Congress should pass some legislation if it's unclear. But that hasn't been a functioning branch of govt for a couple of decades now. IMO it's not even unclear, crypto companies just want to pretend it is because their pocketbook depends on it, but I'm not a lawyer.
az226 3y ago
Calling crypto an investment contract is a shaky argument at best.
ascendantlogic 3y ago
At some point someone has to explain to you what law you broke and how you broke it. We'll see how this goes for the SEC. I'm not convinced they're going to end up on the winning side with these vague enforcement lawsuits substituting for policy/law from the legislative branch.
- kadoban 3y ago
  More to a judge or jury than to you exactly, but yeah they'll have to do that. I don't personally have a lot of doubt in their abilities to do so, but I'm very much not a lawyer. Just the legal system tends to be unsympathetic to hacker technicalities that us techies like.
- ac29 3y ago
  > At some point someone has to explain to you what law you broke and how you broke it The link at the top of this page is 90 pages of the SEC telling Kraken what rules and regulations they have broken. It is certainly possible the court will disagree with the SEC, but I wouldnt bet on it.
  - humanizersequel 3y ago
    >It is certainly possible the court will disagree with the SEC, but I wouldnt bet on it. I would (not a lot, but I would). They lost on the Grayscale trust, they lost on XRP being a security (extremely relevant here), they're seemingly settling with Binance... the court has been disagreeing with the SEC a whole lot on the matter of blockchain regulation lately.
- patmorgan23 3y ago
  "At some point someone has to explain to you what law you broke and how you broke it. " Yes, that would be what the SEC is doing right now by initiating enforcement actions.
hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
Many organizations in law enforcement have explicit programs to do exactly that. Here is one from the IRS: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/determination-opinion-and-advisory-letter-for-retirement-plans-scope-and-benefit-of-a-favorable-determination-opinion-or-advisory-letter https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/determination-opinion-a... Basically, the rules for whether a retirement plan meets the qualifications for favorable tax treatment are highly complex, so a plan sponsor can ask the IRS to determine if the structure of the plan fits the rules by asking for a "Favorable Determination Letter". This seems to me highly analogous to what crypto exchanges wanted from the SEC.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
  Perhaps this is nitpicking too much but now I wonder on the point of obligation. Is this IRS function required per some law or other mandate? Of course, it seems best that a regulating body is clear about their regulations. It seems weird that’s even in contention, to be honest. But I do wonder about an obligation to do so.
lmm 3y ago
Morally they do. Secret laws and secret courts are widely recognised as inimical to democracy; laws that are too complex for regular people to understand are too, for the same reasons.
ahallock 3y ago
Interesting. I thought government was there to serve the people not to be an adversary. No wonder our tax code is so convoluted.
- Broken_Hippo 3y ago
  It is: You might or might not be considered one of the people, though. Long history of making people not people (See: Slavery and incarceration)
b112 3y ago
Law enforcement has no obligation to explain the laws to you. One aspect of common-law, is that it is law that is equally applied to all. The logic is, if Bob did thing $x, and Sally did thing $x, both should expect a similar outcome. This is because a person has a right to know how specific acts are interpreted by courts, for whatever legislation is being tried against. A person has a literal right in common-law, pre-dating most modern democracies, to know how a thing they do will be interpreted. And this is why most descendants of common-law legal systems, such as the US, put such strong strictures on prior judgements. It's vital. It's missed by many, but this is how people know how the law will be interpreted. And my point in all of this is, yes, 100%, under common-law, someone has to give you an idea of how your actions will be interpreted. It's core to common-law, and US law, is predicated upon common-law, criminal or civil. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse", however, that does not remove the right to be informed of the law when asked! (Let's not dive into the few places that have napoleonic civil code in the US, and stick to federal law at least)

Law enforcement has no obligation to explain the laws to you.

stevev 3y ago

It’s congress’s fault for not defining the rules and for giving the SEC a hammer.

armatav 3y ago

Except when they sue you for it.

polygamous_bat 3y ago
They will happily explain it to the judge with you in the room, I believe.

tripplyons 3y ago

I hope some branch of the government gives an explanation.

kadoban 3y ago
Ideally Congress should pass some legislation if it's unclear. But that hasn't been a functioning branch of govt for a couple of decades now. IMO it's not even unclear, crypto companies just want to pretend it is because their pocketbook depends on it, but I'm not a lawyer.

az226 3y ago

Calling crypto an investment contract is a shaky argument at best.

ascendantlogic 3y ago

At some point someone has to explain to you what law you broke and how you broke it. We'll see how this goes for the SEC. I'm not convinced they're going to end up on the winning side with these vague enforcement lawsuits substituting for policy/law from the legislative branch.

kadoban 3y ago
More to a judge or jury than to you exactly, but yeah they'll have to do that. I don't personally have a lot of doubt in their abilities to do so, but I'm very much not a lawyer. Just the legal system tends to be unsympathetic to hacker technicalities that us techies like.
ac29 3y ago
> At some point someone has to explain to you what law you broke and how you broke it The link at the top of this page is 90 pages of the SEC telling Kraken what rules and regulations they have broken. It is certainly possible the court will disagree with the SEC, but I wouldnt bet on it.
- humanizersequel 3y ago
  >It is certainly possible the court will disagree with the SEC, but I wouldnt bet on it. I would (not a lot, but I would). They lost on the Grayscale trust, they lost on XRP being a security (extremely relevant here), they're seemingly settling with Binance... the court has been disagreeing with the SEC a whole lot on the matter of blockchain regulation lately.
patmorgan23 3y ago
"At some point someone has to explain to you what law you broke and how you broke it. " Yes, that would be what the SEC is doing right now by initiating enforcement actions.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago

Many organizations in law enforcement have explicit programs to do exactly that. Here is one from the IRS: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/determination-opinion-and-advisory-letter-for-retirement-plans-scope-and-benefit-of-a-favorable-determination-opinion-or-advisory-letter https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/determination-opinion-a... Basically, the rules for whether a retirement plan meets the qualifications for favorable tax treatment are highly complex, so a plan sponsor can ask the IRS to determine if the structure of the plan fits the rules by asking for a "Favorable Determination Letter". This seems to me highly analogous to what crypto exchanges wanted from the SEC.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
Perhaps this is nitpicking too much but now I wonder on the point of obligation. Is this IRS function required per some law or other mandate? Of course, it seems best that a regulating body is clear about their regulations. It seems weird that’s even in contention, to be honest. But I do wonder about an obligation to do so.

lmm 3y ago

Morally they do. Secret laws and secret courts are widely recognised as inimical to democracy; laws that are too complex for regular people to understand are too, for the same reasons.

ahallock 3y ago

Interesting. I thought government was there to serve the people not to be an adversary. No wonder our tax code is so convoluted.

Broken_Hippo 3y ago
It is: You might or might not be considered one of the people, though. Long history of making people not people (See: Slavery and incarceration)

b112 3y ago

Law enforcement has no obligation to explain the laws to you. One aspect of common-law, is that it is law that is equally applied to all. The logic is, if Bob did thing $x, and Sally did thing $x, both should expect a similar outcome. This is because a person has a right to know how specific acts are interpreted by courts, for whatever legislation is being tried against. A person has a literal right in common-law, pre-dating most modern democracies, to know how a thing they do will be interpreted. And this is why most descendants of common-law legal systems, such as the US, put such strong strictures on prior judgements. It's vital. It's missed by many, but this is how people know how the law will be interpreted. And my point in all of this is, yes, 100%, under common-law, someone has to give you an idea of how your actions will be interpreted. It's core to common-law, and US law, is predicated upon common-law, criminal or civil. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse", however, that does not remove the right to be informed of the law when asked! (Let's not dive into the few places that have napoleonic civil code in the US, and stick to federal law at least)