4 ms·

So what happens if he legally obtained these bitcoins, but cannot prove that he did so? So he basically loses them before he even can prove that they are his o

So what happens if he legally obtained these bitcoins, but cannot prove that he did so? So he basically loses them before he even can prove that they are his or not? That doesn't seem right, it would make sense that the coins are held in an escrow status until he was proven guilty.. It seems to be a big loophole for the government to just go and steal whatever they want from you, before you've been proven guilty.

SCHiM 12y ago
More people have noticed this, there has also been an item in John Olivers talkshow about it. Very funny, but also very sad. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/06/john-oliver-civil-forfeiture_n_5938686.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/06/john-oliver-civil-f... Also this, an article mentioned in the show: http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/st...
mason240 12y ago
>That doesn't seem right It's not, and there has actually been a low-level national (US) dialog on the subject over the last month. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/11/10/363102433/police-can-seize-and-sell-assets-even-when-the-owner-broke-no-law http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/11/10/363102433/pol...
valarauca1 12y ago
Civil forfeiture is really screwed up [1]. >So he basically loses them before he even can prove that they are his or not? Yes goods are guilty until proven innocent in court. >It seems to be a big loophole for the government to just go and steal whatever they want from you, before you've been proven guilty. It kinda is. Watch the link. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks
chiph 12y ago
> It seems to be a big loophole for the government to just go and steal whatever they want from you, before you've been proven guilty. Happens all the time. You can be driving along, get pulled over, and the cop claims the money in your wallet is the result of illegal activities (usually drug dealing), and takes it. You can get it back by winning the civil lawsuit that will get filed: "Hazzard County Sheriff's Office vs. $150" Is this constitutional? Lots of people don't think so, but the cops believe it is.
- ewang1 12y ago
  They believe it is until it's their own assets on the line.
cecilpl 12y ago
It isn't right, but that's the reality of civil forfeiture in the United States.
sillysaurus3 12y ago
Let's be honest: There is zero chance that Ross William Ulbricht obtained those coins legally. While that may be beside the point, a rousing speech about how asset forfeiture should be changed would resonate more strongly if the subject was someone other than a person who hired people to murder others. Also, it seems like supreme court justices aren't going to turn against asset forfeiture any time soon, so there's really no way to stop the practice. EDIT: It's interesting how far people are twisting my words. I made two assertions: One, that there is no way Ulbrict obtained those coins legally, so if you want to reform asset forfeiture, choosing Ulbrict as your mascot would be a tactical mistake. Two, that unless you can convince the supreme court justices to turn against asset forfeiture, the practice will not change. If you're reading into my words more than those two assertions, you're reading too far.
- RamseyMcGrath 12y ago
  While we're being honest, I don't think there were ever charges filed against Ross for hiring anyone to kill anyone else
  - nemo 12y ago
    There have been charges filed and a pending trial in Maryland that includes these charges, while the current case is a separate trial in NY. http://www.popehat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/UlbrichtMarylandIndictment.pdf http://www.popehat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/UlbrichtMa... http://www.popehat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/UlbrichtCriminalComplaint1.pdf http://www.popehat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/UlbrichtCr...
- foobarqux 12y ago
  It would be comparable to saying that he should get a fair trial, even if everyone "knows" he's guilty.
  - sillysaurus3 12y ago
    Not really. Asset forfeiture has nothing to do with a fair trial. Those are two separate concepts under the US legal system. Also, he is getting a fair trial.
waterlesscloud 12y ago
He claimed ownership and agreed to allow them to be sold due to the volatility of the market. The proceeds will be held until the outcome of his case. http://www.usmarshals.gov/assets/2014/dpr-bitcoins/order.pdf http://www.usmarshals.gov/assets/2014/dpr-bitcoins/order.pdf
drcube 12y ago
> It seems to be a big loophole for the government to just go and steal whatever they want from you, before you've been proven guilty. Nevertheless, that's how it works in the land of the free. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/11/10/363102433/police-can-seize-and-sell-assets-even-when-the-owner-broke-no-law http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/11/10/363102433/pol...
anigbrowl 12y ago
Most legal activity (though not necessarily all) will involve paperwork and receipts, not least for the purposes of documenting your taxable income. Civil forfeiture is often (though not always) used to clear up the legal status of assets found abandoned during a criminal investigation, eg if the DEA interrupts a drug bust and the buyers flee, leaving a few hundred thousand in cash behind. You could turn up to such a hearing and assert a legal claim to such assets along with an explanation of why they should not be forfeit, but if the assets are the proceeds of criminal activity then it's not worth it unless you have a truly outstanding cover story because you'd risk arrest or having the testimony at the hearing turn up in your criminal case. IIRC in this case the feds got the bitcoin wallet information by seizing the Silk Road server, so they have a wholly reasonable presumption that the bitcoins are the assets of the (obviously illegal) drug brokerage business and probably a transaction log to back up this presumption.
gnaritas 12y ago
> That doesn't seem right Right has nothing to do with the law. Law is about what those with power can push through, it doesn't have anything to do with right and wrong.
sneak 12y ago
> a big loophole for the government to just go and steal whatever they want from you, before you've been proven guilty That's exactly what it is. It's truly terrible. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks

SCHiM 12y ago

More people have noticed this, there has also been an item in John Olivers talkshow about it. Very funny, but also very sad. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/06/john-oliver-civil-forfeiture_n_5938686.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/06/john-oliver-civil-f... Also this, an article mentioned in the show: http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/st...

mason240 12y ago

>That doesn't seem right It's not, and there has actually been a low-level national (US) dialog on the subject over the last month. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/11/10/363102433/police-can-seize-and-sell-assets-even-when-the-owner-broke-no-law http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/11/10/363102433/pol...

valarauca1 12y ago

Civil forfeiture is really screwed up [1]. >So he basically loses them before he even can prove that they are his or not? Yes goods are guilty until proven innocent in court. >It seems to be a big loophole for the government to just go and steal whatever they want from you, before you've been proven guilty. It kinda is. Watch the link. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks

chiph 12y ago

> It seems to be a big loophole for the government to just go and steal whatever they want from you, before you've been proven guilty. Happens all the time. You can be driving along, get pulled over, and the cop claims the money in your wallet is the result of illegal activities (usually drug dealing), and takes it. You can get it back by winning the civil lawsuit that will get filed: "Hazzard County Sheriff's Office vs. $150" Is this constitutional? Lots of people don't think so, but the cops believe it is.

ewang1 12y ago
They believe it is until it's their own assets on the line.

cecilpl 12y ago

It isn't right, but that's the reality of civil forfeiture in the United States.

sillysaurus3 12y ago

Let's be honest: There is zero chance that Ross William Ulbricht obtained those coins legally. While that may be beside the point, a rousing speech about how asset forfeiture should be changed would resonate more strongly if the subject was someone other than a person who hired people to murder others. Also, it seems like supreme court justices aren't going to turn against asset forfeiture any time soon, so there's really no way to stop the practice. EDIT: It's interesting how far people are twisting my words. I made two assertions: One, that there is no way Ulbrict obtained those coins legally, so if you want to reform asset forfeiture, choosing Ulbrict as your mascot would be a tactical mistake. Two, that unless you can convince the supreme court justices to turn against asset forfeiture, the practice will not change. If you're reading into my words more than those two assertions, you're reading too far.

RamseyMcGrath 12y ago
While we're being honest, I don't think there were ever charges filed against Ross for hiring anyone to kill anyone else
- nemo 12y ago
  There have been charges filed and a pending trial in Maryland that includes these charges, while the current case is a separate trial in NY. http://www.popehat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/UlbrichtMarylandIndictment.pdf http://www.popehat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/UlbrichtMa... http://www.popehat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/UlbrichtCriminalComplaint1.pdf http://www.popehat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/UlbrichtCr...
foobarqux 12y ago
It would be comparable to saying that he should get a fair trial, even if everyone "knows" he's guilty.
- sillysaurus3 12y ago
  Not really. Asset forfeiture has nothing to do with a fair trial. Those are two separate concepts under the US legal system. Also, he is getting a fair trial.

waterlesscloud 12y ago

He claimed ownership and agreed to allow them to be sold due to the volatility of the market. The proceeds will be held until the outcome of his case. http://www.usmarshals.gov/assets/2014/dpr-bitcoins/order.pdf http://www.usmarshals.gov/assets/2014/dpr-bitcoins/order.pdf

drcube 12y ago

> It seems to be a big loophole for the government to just go and steal whatever they want from you, before you've been proven guilty. Nevertheless, that's how it works in the land of the free. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/11/10/363102433/police-can-seize-and-sell-assets-even-when-the-owner-broke-no-law http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/11/10/363102433/pol...

anigbrowl 12y ago

Most legal activity (though not necessarily all) will involve paperwork and receipts, not least for the purposes of documenting your taxable income. Civil forfeiture is often (though not always) used to clear up the legal status of assets found abandoned during a criminal investigation, eg if the DEA interrupts a drug bust and the buyers flee, leaving a few hundred thousand in cash behind. You could turn up to such a hearing and assert a legal claim to such assets along with an explanation of why they should not be forfeit, but if the assets are the proceeds of criminal activity then it's not worth it unless you have a truly outstanding cover story because you'd risk arrest or having the testimony at the hearing turn up in your criminal case. IIRC in this case the feds got the bitcoin wallet information by seizing the Silk Road server, so they have a wholly reasonable presumption that the bitcoins are the assets of the (obviously illegal) drug brokerage business and probably a transaction log to back up this presumption.

gnaritas 12y ago

> That doesn't seem right Right has nothing to do with the law. Law is about what those with power can push through, it doesn't have anything to do with right and wrong.

sneak 12y ago

> a big loophole for the government to just go and steal whatever they want from you, before you've been proven guilty That's exactly what it is. It's truly terrible. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks