5 ms·

Will he get his possesions back then? 50,676 bitcoins, today valued at 5,3 billion USD. https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/us-attorney-announces-historic-33

Will he get his possesions back then? 50,676 bitcoins, today valued at 5,3 billion USD. https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/us-attorney-announces-historic-336-billion-cryptocurrency-seizure-and-conviction https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/us-attorney-announces-h...

ktallett 2y ago
I am not sure of the legality around his possessions but they are long gone. Even the ones stolen by FBI officers during the course of the investigation.
- mmooss 2y ago
  I think that requires convincing evidence. Also, how is it relevant to the question?
  - ktallett 2y ago
    Well the American Government auctioned the bitcoin, and the two FBI agents were tried and sentenced for theft. I don't need evidence. I am curious how the American government can reimburse those pardoned.
    - mmooss 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - bdhcuidbebe 2y ago
        Its well known and well covered facts regarding this high status case, you even got links in a sibling comment so read them
  - 1123581321 2y ago
    It is easy to look up the cases against the agents. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-federal-agents-charged-bitcoin-money-laundering-and-wire-fraud https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-federal-agents-charged... Both served time.
    - mmooss 2y ago
      Thanks, that links to the charges. "Two former federal agents have been charged with wire fraud, money laundering and related offenses for stealing digital currency during their investigation of the Silk Road ..."
      - ktallett 2y ago
        I'm more than happy to have the discussion with you but I have no requirement to provide all of the information that is widely available in the public domain.
        mmooss 2y ago
        Are you replying to the wrong comment? :)
      - 1123581321 2y ago
        I’ll let you Google the pleas and sentences. Stop with the asinine recalcitrance.
misiti3780 2y ago
Hey may have other wallets...
- konfusinomicon 2y ago
  with a name like DPR id have to assume its buried treasure
- bigiain 2y ago
  I suspect there'll be a lot of people very carefully watching for transactions from wallets with some sort of links to Silk Road that have been dormant for 12 years or so.
bb88 2y ago
If they were from the commission of a crime, then no.
- idlewords 2y ago
  It's a full pardon; there is no crime.
  - georgeplusplus 2y ago
    I don’t believe that’s true. A pardon does not excuse a crime.
  - bb88 2y ago
    Hard to agree here. A jury of his peers convicted him of the crime.
  - qingcharles 2y ago
    That's not how it works. The money can still be guilty of a crime outside of the Defendant's acquittal in civil cases like this. source: hundreds of hours in forfeiture court
    - idlewords 2y ago
      Pardon the money!
      - tptacek 2y ago
        He can't. The President doesn't have civil pardon power.
    - cryptonector 2y ago
      Civil asset forfeiture should not be considered constitutional, and some day a test case will make it to the SCOTUS. As for this case though... the pardon does not make Ulbritch innocent! On the contrary, accepting the pardon implies guilt. So the pardon need not and might not extend to forfeitures. Though it's also possible that the presidential pardon could extend to the forfeitures, but I suspect that's a constitutional grey area.
arcticbull 2y ago
No, generally a pardon does not eliminate any civil liability or entitle you to refunds once the assets have been transferred to Treasury. He would still have to answer Yes to having been convicted of a felony and he would still not be entitled to vote in states that do not permit felons to vote. > Where a person has paid a monetary penalty or forfeited property, the consequences of a pardon depend in part on when it was issued. If a monetary fine or contraband cash has been transferred to the Treasury, a pardon conveys no right to a refund, nor does the person pardoned have a right to reacquire property or the equivalent in cash from a legitimate purchaser of his seized assets or from an informant who was rewarded with cash taken from the pardoned person before he was pardoned. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/presidential-pardons-settled-law-unsettled-issues-and-a-downside-for-trump https://www.brookings.edu/articles/presidential-pardons-sett...
- joering2 2y ago
  This is obviously incorrect. Actually pardon means the charges filed has been voided, hence anything happening afterwards has had no merits and court decisions made are now rendered moot. For example, Roger Stone was charged and found guilty of multiple crimes and Trump pardoned him; he still brandish guns and was "proudly voting Trump" in 2024 in state of Florida. Getting pardon is literally like it never happened in the first place.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - arcticbull 2y ago
    The pardon can restore certain rights in some cases, I'm not entirely familiar with the Stone shenanigans, but knowing the parties involved I can't assume that Stone was legally entitled to do what he did after the pardon, and maybe he was. That said, the recovery of assets after transfer to Treasury is settled law. [1] > More broadly, the Court ruled in several cases during this period that pardons entitled their recipients to recover property forfeited or seized on the basis of the underlying offenses, so long as vested third-party rights would not be affected and money had not already been paid into the Treasury (except as authorized by statute). Was covered in Osborne v. United States, Knote v. United States, In re: Armstrong's Foundry, Cent. R.R. v. Bosworth and Jenkins v. Collard Subsequent cases make it clear that the offense is not in fact "gone." > ... the Court in Burdick stated that a pardon “carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it." > ... then, in Carlesi v. New York, the Court determined that a pardoned offense could still be considered “as a circumstance of aggravation” under a state habitual-offender law, reflecting that although a pardon may obviate the punishment for a federal crime, it does not erase the facts associated with the crime or preclude all collateral effects arising from those facts. The court holds that it is not in fact as if it never happened. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-2/clause-1/legal-effect-of-a-pardon https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/sec...
throwaway657656 2y ago
Until now I oddly never questioned how any government could seize someone's bitcoin and how a government keeps the private keys of their crypto wallets secure.
- yieldcrv 2y ago
  a lot of known best practices were not followed in 2013. Every advancement in crypto was done after the government made a move. And all subsequent moves netted the government less. Now it takes more agencies to seize darknet markets, and most merchants and consumers get their money back because it was a multisignature transaction and the server stored nothing. Even domains have been seized back from the government. The crypto space calls it "antifragility", as in the idea - and now history - that the asset class and infrastructure improves under pressure.
  - dmix 2y ago
    > a lot of known best practices were not followed in 2013. like Secret Service and DEA agents getting immediately caught trying to steal Bitcoin from Silk Road? https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/03/30/federal-agents-charged-with-stealing-bitcoin-from-silk-road-case/70672058/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/03/30/federal-agent...
    - yieldcrv 2y ago
      Yes, like that I was referring to hot and cold wallet practices, methods for unlinking transaction activity from your KYC’d funds, and the immaturity of multi-signature at the time
yapyap 2y ago
obviously not.
Scoundreller 2y ago
Was that profits or users’ deposits?
notfed 2y ago
I don't think it's crazy to suspect that Ulbricht knows a password or two and cut a deal here.
- osrec 2y ago
  Yeah, something's a little fishy about the whole thing.
- ttyprintk 2y ago
  I expected those would come out sooner, by rubber hose technique in prison.
pazimzadeh 2y ago
those are not his possessions. user account balances are included in that sum

ktallett 2y ago

I am not sure of the legality around his possessions but they are long gone. Even the ones stolen by FBI officers during the course of the investigation.

mmooss 2y ago
I think that requires convincing evidence. Also, how is it relevant to the question?
- ktallett 2y ago
  Well the American Government auctioned the bitcoin, and the two FBI agents were tried and sentenced for theft. I don't need evidence. I am curious how the American government can reimburse those pardoned.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - bdhcuidbebe 2y ago
      Its well known and well covered facts regarding this high status case, you even got links in a sibling comment so read them
- 1123581321 2y ago
  It is easy to look up the cases against the agents. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-federal-agents-charged-bitcoin-money-laundering-and-wire-fraud https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-federal-agents-charged... Both served time.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    Thanks, that links to the charges. "Two former federal agents have been charged with wire fraud, money laundering and related offenses for stealing digital currency during their investigation of the Silk Road ..."
    - ktallett 2y ago
      I'm more than happy to have the discussion with you but I have no requirement to provide all of the information that is widely available in the public domain.
      - mmooss 2y ago
        Are you replying to the wrong comment? :)
    - 1123581321 2y ago
      I’ll let you Google the pleas and sentences. Stop with the asinine recalcitrance.

misiti3780 2y ago

Hey may have other wallets...

konfusinomicon 2y ago
with a name like DPR id have to assume its buried treasure
bigiain 2y ago
I suspect there'll be a lot of people very carefully watching for transactions from wallets with some sort of links to Silk Road that have been dormant for 12 years or so.

bb88 2y ago

If they were from the commission of a crime, then no.

idlewords 2y ago
It's a full pardon; there is no crime.
- georgeplusplus 2y ago
  I don’t believe that’s true. A pardon does not excuse a crime.
- bb88 2y ago
  Hard to agree here. A jury of his peers convicted him of the crime.
- qingcharles 2y ago
  That's not how it works. The money can still be guilty of a crime outside of the Defendant's acquittal in civil cases like this. source: hundreds of hours in forfeiture court
  - idlewords 2y ago
    Pardon the money!
    - tptacek 2y ago
      He can't. The President doesn't have civil pardon power.
  - cryptonector 2y ago
    Civil asset forfeiture should not be considered constitutional, and some day a test case will make it to the SCOTUS. As for this case though... the pardon does not make Ulbritch innocent! On the contrary, accepting the pardon implies guilt. So the pardon need not and might not extend to forfeitures. Though it's also possible that the presidential pardon could extend to the forfeitures, but I suspect that's a constitutional grey area.

arcticbull 2y ago

No, generally a pardon does not eliminate any civil liability or entitle you to refunds once the assets have been transferred to Treasury. He would still have to answer Yes to having been convicted of a felony and he would still not be entitled to vote in states that do not permit felons to vote. > Where a person has paid a monetary penalty or forfeited property, the consequences of a pardon depend in part on when it was issued. If a monetary fine or contraband cash has been transferred to the Treasury, a pardon conveys no right to a refund, nor does the person pardoned have a right to reacquire property or the equivalent in cash from a legitimate purchaser of his seized assets or from an informant who was rewarded with cash taken from the pardoned person before he was pardoned. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/presidential-pardons-settled-law-unsettled-issues-and-a-downside-for-trump https://www.brookings.edu/articles/presidential-pardons-sett...

joering2 2y ago
This is obviously incorrect. Actually pardon means the charges filed has been voided, hence anything happening afterwards has had no merits and court decisions made are now rendered moot. For example, Roger Stone was charged and found guilty of multiple crimes and Trump pardoned him; he still brandish guns and was "proudly voting Trump" in 2024 in state of Florida. Getting pardon is literally like it never happened in the first place.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- arcticbull 2y ago
  The pardon can restore certain rights in some cases, I'm not entirely familiar with the Stone shenanigans, but knowing the parties involved I can't assume that Stone was legally entitled to do what he did after the pardon, and maybe he was. That said, the recovery of assets after transfer to Treasury is settled law. [1] > More broadly, the Court ruled in several cases during this period that pardons entitled their recipients to recover property forfeited or seized on the basis of the underlying offenses, so long as vested third-party rights would not be affected and money had not already been paid into the Treasury (except as authorized by statute). Was covered in Osborne v. United States, Knote v. United States, In re: Armstrong's Foundry, Cent. R.R. v. Bosworth and Jenkins v. Collard Subsequent cases make it clear that the offense is not in fact "gone." > ... the Court in Burdick stated that a pardon “carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it." > ... then, in Carlesi v. New York, the Court determined that a pardoned offense could still be considered “as a circumstance of aggravation” under a state habitual-offender law, reflecting that although a pardon may obviate the punishment for a federal crime, it does not erase the facts associated with the crime or preclude all collateral effects arising from those facts. The court holds that it is not in fact as if it never happened. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-2/clause-1/legal-effect-of-a-pardon https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/sec...

throwaway657656 2y ago

Until now I oddly never questioned how any government could seize someone's bitcoin and how a government keeps the private keys of their crypto wallets secure.

yieldcrv 2y ago
a lot of known best practices were not followed in 2013. Every advancement in crypto was done after the government made a move. And all subsequent moves netted the government less. Now it takes more agencies to seize darknet markets, and most merchants and consumers get their money back because it was a multisignature transaction and the server stored nothing. Even domains have been seized back from the government. The crypto space calls it "antifragility", as in the idea - and now history - that the asset class and infrastructure improves under pressure.
- dmix 2y ago
  > a lot of known best practices were not followed in 2013. like Secret Service and DEA agents getting immediately caught trying to steal Bitcoin from Silk Road? https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/03/30/federal-agents-charged-with-stealing-bitcoin-from-silk-road-case/70672058/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/03/30/federal-agent...
  - yieldcrv 2y ago
    Yes, like that I was referring to hot and cold wallet practices, methods for unlinking transaction activity from your KYC’d funds, and the immaturity of multi-signature at the time

yapyap 2y ago

obviously not.

Scoundreller 2y ago

Was that profits or users’ deposits?

notfed 2y ago

I don't think it's crazy to suspect that Ulbricht knows a password or two and cut a deal here.

osrec 2y ago
Yeah, something's a little fishy about the whole thing.
ttyprintk 2y ago
I expected those would come out sooner, by rubber hose technique in prison.

pazimzadeh 2y ago

those are not his possessions. user account balances are included in that sum