4 ms·
They're explicitly not selling the Bitcoins seized from his personal wallet(s). They're selling the ones seized from the servers that ran Silk Road. My bet wou
by curun1r 12y ago
They're explicitly not selling the Bitcoins seized from his personal wallet(s). They're selling the ones seized from the servers that ran Silk Road.
My bet would be that Ulbricht has denied any connection to those servers as part of his defense since claiming to own/control them would make it too easy for the government to prove its case. If, at this point, those servers belong to anyone else, they're free to come forward and claim to own them...that would stop the sale.
So if no one claims to own them, they're fair game for the government to sell.
- talmand 12y agoSomehow I doubt that's how it works, or at least I really hope it doesn't work that way. The government seizes something and attempts to sell it off before identifying who it belongs to? Sure, sounds the right way to handle things.
- swalkergibson 12y agoThe forfeiture action is a civil proceeding against the asset itself. If somebody has a claim to the asset, they can come forward and contest the proceeding, and potentially win. However, in a case like this, coming forward would essentially identify yourself as a co-conspirator in a clearly illegal enterprise. As such, nobody came forward, so a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff was granted because nobody was there to represent themselves as the owner of the asset.