4 ms·

Isn't this a bit presumptuous? Ross William Ulbricht hasn't yet been convicted of anything. I know that they aren't selling his personal bitcoins, but in the (

Isn't this a bit presumptuous? Ross William Ulbricht hasn't yet been convicted of anything. I know that they aren't selling his personal bitcoins, but in the (highly unlikely) event that he is found innocent, wouldn't that mean that the Silk Road assets need to be returned to him? How then can they sell them now?

ars 12y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7886226 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7886226
ryan_j_naughton 12y ago
It is presumptuous, but that is how civil forfeiture works. Its atrocious. Take a look at this well written article by the New Yorker Taken: The Use and Abuse of Civil Forfeiture http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/08/12/130812fa_fact_stillman http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/08/12/130812fa_fact_...
- josephschmoe 12y ago
  That is indeed blood boiling. I am now upset after reading this...
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  While there are real issues with civil forfeiture raised in that article, they largely don't apply here -- this isn't a case where the government said "let us seize your assets and we won't prosecute you" (using it as an extortion mechanism) or where the cost of contesting forfeiture exceeds the value of the assets. Its a case where Ulbricht chose to assert a claim on certain seized property and not on others, either because he is not, in fact, DPR (which is what he claims) and didn't want to steal property that wasn't his, or because he is actually is DPR but admitting that he owned the Silk Road servers and bitcoins would make his conviction more likely because it would make it harder for him to deny being the guy behind Silk Road.
- ahallock 12y ago
  That's disgusting. FTA: 'Many states, facing fiscal crises, have expanded the reach of their forfeiture statutes, and made it easier for law enforcement to use the revenue however they see fit.' How are they any better than the criminals they're supposed to be protecting us from?
  - Uhhrrr 12y ago
    -Their henchmen wear uniforms so you don't confuse them with normal people -They operate from fixed headquarters -Some of them are elected -They have a complaints department -Certain social services are provided
  - talmand 12y ago
    For the departments that choose to go down that road, they are essentially no different. Except that they have the legal might of the state supporting their actions; including use of deadly force. Allowing forfeiture statutes of this nature likely motivates departments to increase their usage to get more revenues. It is a disgusting practice and can only lead to something bad.
- vacri 12y ago
  Jello Biafra sang about this as far back as the late 1980s - "property seized and sold before trial", where he had assets siezed in a raid, and the sheriff was legally able to sell his gear before Biafra had seen the inside of a courtroom.
grondilu 12y ago
If this happens (though it is very unlikely indeed), the bitcoins could be bought back or Ulbricht could receive an indemnity in US dollars.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  No, if Ulbricht had claimed the bitcoins were his (which would be kind of hard when he is also claiming that he isn't the guy behind the Silk Road), they would have remained seized as evidence but would not have been forfeited without further proceedings. They were forfeited because no one, including Ulbricht, claimed them (unlike the bitcoins that were seized from his personal computer that he did claim.)
danielsju6 12y ago
Actually forfeiture sucks hard, even if you are found not-guilty you don't really have a chance in hell of recovering assets seized during a drug bust—like your car for instance. You can try to prove your innocence but it doesn't really work in practice.
- swalkergibson 12y ago
  While there are certainly wanton abuses of civil forfeiture statutes, linked to even in this comment thread, applying them here is a no-brainer. Silk Road was very clearly a marketplace for illegal drugs, and the brokerage fee that DPR collected (whoever he or she is) is clearly illegal. Again, there are obviously situations where civil forfeiture is improperly utilized. This is not one of them, in my opinion.
  - aidenn0 12y ago
    What about due process?
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > What about due process? The process here was that government announced forfeiture action, people were given a chance to claim a property interest and fight the forfeiture, and no one chose to do so. Ulbricht was clearly aware of it, and did assert a claim to other property that was the subject of the same forfeiture action. The seizure was a default judgement because there was no property owner to contest the forfeiture. What additional process is due, and to whom is it due?
      - maerF0x0 12y ago
        My guess is no one has stepped forward because it would make the party guilty. It'd be like an officer saying "Whose backpack is this?" and it has a bomb in it. The owner is in big trouble if they step up.
  - baddox 12y ago
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
swalkergibson 12y ago
I thought the same thing. However, if he is found not guilty, then the presumption is that he was not involved and therefore would not be the "rightful owner" of the seized property anyway.
- meowface 12y ago
  I agree. These coins were the property of the Silk Road website/enterprise.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> Ross William Ulbricht hasn't yet been convicted of anything. I know that they aren't selling his personal bitcoins, but in the (highly unlikely) event that he is found innocent, wouldn't that mean that the Silk Road assets need to be returned to him? If they aren't his bitcoins, why would they return them to him? The assets they are selling aren't the ones he has claimed a property interest in, they are the ones that were unclaimed (by him or anyone else) when the forfeiture action was initiated. http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/January14/SilkRoadForfeiture/Silk%20Road%20Partial%20Default%20Judgment%20and%20Order%20of%20Forfeiture.pdf http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/January14/Silk...
GigabyteCoin 12y ago
I am under the impression that they are auctioning off bitcoins that belonged to "The Silk Road" and not "Ross Ulbricht". There is no doubt in anyone's mind that the bitcoin sitting inside the silkroad wallets was free for the taking by U.S. authorities. Whether or not Ross Ulbricht's wealth is owed to the U.S. government they're not sure, so they're keeping them until the trial has completed.
- waterlesscloud 12y ago
  I'm not sure they really belonged to The Silk Road. Didn't they really belong to the users, who had them on deposit on The Silk Road? I guess the law would see that as belonging to the business holding them, but I'm not sure that's morally correct.
  - PeterisP 12y ago
    First, this is explicitly unclaimed stuff; any who had a (in their mind) legitimate claim on those bitcoins had an option to claim [part of] them as their property; apparently noone did. And if it's the property of Silk Road, then no matter what their deal was with the users, when it closes shop then the due process generally doesn't involve giving parts of their assets to users or creditors - the due process is to auction off those assets (as they're doing now) and settle those liabilities with US dollars; so again, people can claim that Silk Road owes them bitcoins, and they can get paid an appropriate share of this sale.
    - brasky 12y ago
      I think there was one guy who was trying to get his coins back.
rbobby 12y ago
Meh... a bitcoin is a bitcoin is a bitcoin. If in the future the gov't is ordered to return X number of bitcoins they can simply go to the marketplace and buy them.
Cthulhu_ 12y ago
Well no, because it's been proven already that Silk Road was a drug exchange, and thus the money is dirty drug money and confiscated by the government. Whether Ulbricht was the mastermind behind the exchange and should be incarcerated is yet to be determined (I believe), that takes a longer lawsuit than a court order to shut SR down and seize its assets.
mscman 12y ago
I don't think so. Since the assets were on SR servers, which weren't technically Ross's personal property, and the business was used for selling drugs (admittedly along with other things), civil forfeiture laws allow the government to take those assets. Doesn't matter what happens with the lawsuit.
landryraccoon 12y ago
As others have pointed out, Ulbricht has not claimed that they are his bitcoins. In fact he would be undermining his own legal defense if he claimed the bitcoins were his, so the government is taking them unopposed. So if he were found innocent, probably part of the basis for finding him innocent would be that he successfully convinced the government that those were NOT his bitcoins.

ars 12y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7886226 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7886226

ryan_j_naughton 12y ago

It is presumptuous, but that is how civil forfeiture works. Its atrocious. Take a look at this well written article by the New Yorker Taken: The Use and Abuse of Civil Forfeiture http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/08/12/130812fa_fact_stillman http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/08/12/130812fa_fact_...

josephschmoe 12y ago
That is indeed blood boiling. I am now upset after reading this...
dragonwriter 12y ago
While there are real issues with civil forfeiture raised in that article, they largely don't apply here -- this isn't a case where the government said "let us seize your assets and we won't prosecute you" (using it as an extortion mechanism) or where the cost of contesting forfeiture exceeds the value of the assets. Its a case where Ulbricht chose to assert a claim on certain seized property and not on others, either because he is not, in fact, DPR (which is what he claims) and didn't want to steal property that wasn't his, or because he is actually is DPR but admitting that he owned the Silk Road servers and bitcoins would make his conviction more likely because it would make it harder for him to deny being the guy behind Silk Road.
ahallock 12y ago
That's disgusting. FTA: 'Many states, facing fiscal crises, have expanded the reach of their forfeiture statutes, and made it easier for law enforcement to use the revenue however they see fit.' How are they any better than the criminals they're supposed to be protecting us from?
- Uhhrrr 12y ago
  -Their henchmen wear uniforms so you don't confuse them with normal people -They operate from fixed headquarters -Some of them are elected -They have a complaints department -Certain social services are provided
- talmand 12y ago
  For the departments that choose to go down that road, they are essentially no different. Except that they have the legal might of the state supporting their actions; including use of deadly force. Allowing forfeiture statutes of this nature likely motivates departments to increase their usage to get more revenues. It is a disgusting practice and can only lead to something bad.
vacri 12y ago
Jello Biafra sang about this as far back as the late 1980s - "property seized and sold before trial", where he had assets siezed in a raid, and the sheriff was legally able to sell his gear before Biafra had seen the inside of a courtroom.

grondilu 12y ago

If this happens (though it is very unlikely indeed), the bitcoins could be bought back or Ulbricht could receive an indemnity in US dollars.

dragonwriter 12y ago
No, if Ulbricht had claimed the bitcoins were his (which would be kind of hard when he is also claiming that he isn't the guy behind the Silk Road), they would have remained seized as evidence but would not have been forfeited without further proceedings. They were forfeited because no one, including Ulbricht, claimed them (unlike the bitcoins that were seized from his personal computer that he did claim.)

danielsju6 12y ago

Actually forfeiture sucks hard, even if you are found not-guilty you don't really have a chance in hell of recovering assets seized during a drug bust—like your car for instance. You can try to prove your innocence but it doesn't really work in practice.

swalkergibson 12y ago
While there are certainly wanton abuses of civil forfeiture statutes, linked to even in this comment thread, applying them here is a no-brainer. Silk Road was very clearly a marketplace for illegal drugs, and the brokerage fee that DPR collected (whoever he or she is) is clearly illegal. Again, there are obviously situations where civil forfeiture is improperly utilized. This is not one of them, in my opinion.
- aidenn0 12y ago
  What about due process?
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > What about due process? The process here was that government announced forfeiture action, people were given a chance to claim a property interest and fight the forfeiture, and no one chose to do so. Ulbricht was clearly aware of it, and did assert a claim to other property that was the subject of the same forfeiture action. The seizure was a default judgement because there was no property owner to contest the forfeiture. What additional process is due, and to whom is it due?
    - maerF0x0 12y ago
      My guess is no one has stepped forward because it would make the party guilty. It'd be like an officer saying "Whose backpack is this?" and it has a bomb in it. The owner is in big trouble if they step up.
- baddox 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

swalkergibson 12y ago

I thought the same thing. However, if he is found not guilty, then the presumption is that he was not involved and therefore would not be the "rightful owner" of the seized property anyway.

meowface 12y ago
I agree. These coins were the property of the Silk Road website/enterprise.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> Ross William Ulbricht hasn't yet been convicted of anything. I know that they aren't selling his personal bitcoins, but in the (highly unlikely) event that he is found innocent, wouldn't that mean that the Silk Road assets need to be returned to him? If they aren't his bitcoins, why would they return them to him? The assets they are selling aren't the ones he has claimed a property interest in, they are the ones that were unclaimed (by him or anyone else) when the forfeiture action was initiated. http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/January14/SilkRoadForfeiture/Silk%20Road%20Partial%20Default%20Judgment%20and%20Order%20of%20Forfeiture.pdf http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/January14/Silk...

GigabyteCoin 12y ago

I am under the impression that they are auctioning off bitcoins that belonged to "The Silk Road" and not "Ross Ulbricht". There is no doubt in anyone's mind that the bitcoin sitting inside the silkroad wallets was free for the taking by U.S. authorities. Whether or not Ross Ulbricht's wealth is owed to the U.S. government they're not sure, so they're keeping them until the trial has completed.

waterlesscloud 12y ago
I'm not sure they really belonged to The Silk Road. Didn't they really belong to the users, who had them on deposit on The Silk Road? I guess the law would see that as belonging to the business holding them, but I'm not sure that's morally correct.
- PeterisP 12y ago
  First, this is explicitly unclaimed stuff; any who had a (in their mind) legitimate claim on those bitcoins had an option to claim [part of] them as their property; apparently noone did. And if it's the property of Silk Road, then no matter what their deal was with the users, when it closes shop then the due process generally doesn't involve giving parts of their assets to users or creditors - the due process is to auction off those assets (as they're doing now) and settle those liabilities with US dollars; so again, people can claim that Silk Road owes them bitcoins, and they can get paid an appropriate share of this sale.
  - brasky 12y ago
    I think there was one guy who was trying to get his coins back.

rbobby 12y ago

Meh... a bitcoin is a bitcoin is a bitcoin. If in the future the gov't is ordered to return X number of bitcoins they can simply go to the marketplace and buy them.

Cthulhu_ 12y ago

Well no, because it's been proven already that Silk Road was a drug exchange, and thus the money is dirty drug money and confiscated by the government. Whether Ulbricht was the mastermind behind the exchange and should be incarcerated is yet to be determined (I believe), that takes a longer lawsuit than a court order to shut SR down and seize its assets.

mscman 12y ago

I don't think so. Since the assets were on SR servers, which weren't technically Ross's personal property, and the business was used for selling drugs (admittedly along with other things), civil forfeiture laws allow the government to take those assets. Doesn't matter what happens with the lawsuit.

landryraccoon 12y ago

As others have pointed out, Ulbricht has not claimed that they are his bitcoins. In fact he would be undermining his own legal defense if he claimed the bitcoins were his, so the government is taking them unopposed. So if he were found innocent, probably part of the basis for finding him innocent would be that he successfully convinced the government that those were NOT his bitcoins.