3 ms·
Please note that in that case with undercover transactions, there is no evidence that the message sent by an agent was read by the administrator, because the ag
by codedokode 3y ago
Please note that in that case with undercover transactions, there is no evidence that the message sent by an agent was read by the administrator, because the agent didn't receive any reply. It is possible that the mixer was fully automated and performed the exchange before the administrator had a chance to read the message and stop the transaction.
- EthanHeilman 3y agoKnowingly is the case the Federal government must make. If it was just a message sent by an agent, I hope we will not see a conviction.
- Ferret7446 3y agoThis was the first thing I thought of. Why the heck would the admins read random notes sent by users? Obviously there is the potential for abuse for this kind of service, so from a liability perspective you'd be better of deliberately ignoring all messages. Or rather, even if the admins were knowingly facilitating crime, from a liability perspective they would be better off reporting/rejecting any users that say they're committing a crime and only do business with criminals smart enough to wink wink nudge nudge. I can only think of two scenarios where someone would tell a mixer the money is dirty: 1. They are law enforcement 2. They have already been caught by law enforcement and are being used as bait, either knowingly or not
- EthanHeilman 3y agoOr, and this is the most likely in my opinion, but it is just a guess. The undercover said they had a lot of illegally sourced coins to mix, asked the Mixer admin to help them mix such a large amount and offered them an additional reward in exchange. That said, we should not jump to any conclusions until evidence is presented. The government could be fronting a strong case in the indictment and then it turns out to be much weaker when presented.