5 ms·

Everyone seems to be going off on a tangent about civil forfeiture. From the order: http://www.usmarshals.gov/assets/2014/dpr-bitcoins/order.pdf http://www.usma

by whyenot 12y ago

Everyone seems to be going off on a tangent about civil forfeiture. From the order: http://www.usmarshals.gov/assets/2014/dpr-bitcoins/order.pdf http://www.usmarshals.gov/assets/2014/dpr-bitcoins/order.pdf WHEREAS, the Government and Ulbricht agree that, due to the volatile market for bitcoins, the Computer Hardware Bitcoins risk losing value during the pendency of the forfeiture proceedings; WHEREAS, the Government and Ulbricht agree that the Computer Hardware Bitcoins are to be liquidated or sold by the Government before the conclusion of the forfeiture proceedings, with the net proceeds of the sale to be held as substitute res pending further order of this Court;

stronglikedan 12y ago
So basically, put the current value of the coins in escrow, instead of the coins themselves, in case they drop in value dramatically over time. Makes sense to me.
- kordless 12y ago
  A forced sale of an asset is NOT the same as putting it into escrow.
  - EpicEng 12y ago
    What text on that excerpt leads you to believe this was forced?
    - sneak 12y ago
      The "US Marshalls" part.
      - pg_is_a_butt 12y ago
        considering there is no "US Marshalls" part, and the Government was only referenced as "the Government".... you're an idiot.
      - EpicEng 12y ago
        So, in other words, only your own biases and preconceived notions. Edit: I'd be curious to hear the side of you down voters. Do you have a legitimate gripe with the accuracy of what i said, or do you just blindly believe that everything the government does is evil?
        virtue3 12y ago
        So, in other words, only _your_ _own_ biases and preconceived notions. Edit: I'd be curious to hear the side of you down voters. Do you have a legitimate gripe with the accuracy of what i said, or do you just blindly believe that everything the government does is _for_the_greater_good_? Your argument is just shallow and not very constructive and having it reversed should make that somewhat apparent. Personally, the general consensus around these parts is that DPR was brought down with illegal methods by the FBI and then having the actual disclosure being horse shit (aka parallel construction). So yes, blindly trusting that the government is doing anything in good faith around this case is going to be pretty rare.
        chc 12y ago
        To recap: Kordless suggested that the sale was forced. EpicEng asked what indicated that it was forced. Sneak replied that "the 'US Marshalls' part" indicated that it was forced. EpicEng correctly noted that this does not strongly indicate that it was forced, and that to assume so based on the fact that the US Marshalls are involved is evidence of bias. To further recap: EpicEng did not suggest that "everything the government does is for the greater good," nor did EpicEng even say that the sale was not forced — only that we don't have a compelling reason to believe it was. Since EpicEng is merely asking for rational thought, I don't see how this can possibly be evidence of EpicEng's biases and preconceived notions. As a side note, your phrasing here suggests that the only alternatives in your mind are "blindly trust the government" and "blindly accuse everyone involved with the government of any wrongdoing possible," which are both irrational positions. We can consider whether the government is doing something wrong without jumping to conclusions as the people EpicEng was replying to seemed to do.
        saraid216 12y ago
      - nemo 12y ago
        You missed the "Government and Ulbricht agree" part.
        CamperBob2 12y ago
        Sounds like 3 wolves and a sheep agreeing on lunch plans.
- mod 12y ago
  @kordless: It says they agree. Doesn't sound forced.
  - scotty79 12y ago
    Maybe it's one of those things that should not be allowed even if people agree to it.
    - tedunangst 12y ago
      What is? Selling bitcoins should not be allowed?
      - scotty79 12y ago
        government selling your stuff even if you signed paper saying that you agree to it every agreement you signed with government should be implicitly treated as coerced
- Alupis 12y ago
  they could also possibly go up in value. does the government do the same with securities/stock owned too?
  - tedunangst 12y ago
    The Marshals Service manages various types of assets, including real estate, vehicles, commercial businesses, cash, financial instruments, jewelry, art, antiques, collectibles, vessels and aircraft. The agency uses practices from private industry to ensure that assets are managed and sold in an efficient and cost-effective manner. http://www.usmarshals.gov/assets/ http://www.usmarshals.gov/assets/
- duskwuff 12y ago
  Tangent: Does anyone know if it's standard practice for these sorts of arrangements to be made if other goods become part of forfeiture proceedings? (For instance, shares of a volatile mutual fund. Or, to take it out of the financial realm entirely, a truckload of perishable vegetables.)
  - jnaglick 12y ago
    I would guess that there has never been a case of a criminal investing their ill-gotten gains into "a truckload of perishable vegetables."
    - GabrielF00 12y ago
      While not really an analogue, there is the delightfully-named United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Approximately_64,695_Pounds_of_Shark_Fins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Approximately...
    - rsynnott 12y ago
      http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/garlic-man-begley-released-early-from-prison-29156388.html http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/garlic-man-begle... Massive tax fraud case involving Secret Garlic; it happens :)
  - einrealist 12y ago
    If the prosecution loses the case, it can be held liable in a civil case to losses the defendant made. So this is just an agreement between both sides to lower that risk and which does change nothing related to the case (so the judge will agree too). I guess, if there are no objections (even from a third party), this makes totally sense for anything else, too.
paulsutter 12y ago
The IRS will go after him for capital gains tax after the sale. The document makes no mention of a provision for him to pay his taxes due from the proceeds of the sale.
- leogiertz 12y ago
  Wouldn't that be good though? Then he's free to buy property and other things with his "laundered" money if he's cleared from any wrongdoing. It's not that easy to convert a large amount of bitcoins into money that you can use effectively.
  - bengali3 12y ago
    IANACPA I believe that's a nice advantage of bitcoin? I would think individuals could fly to the caymans to cash out and avoid tax?

by whyenot 12y ago

stronglikedan 12y ago

So basically, put the current value of the coins in escrow, instead of the coins themselves, in case they drop in value dramatically over time. Makes sense to me.

kordless 12y ago
A forced sale of an asset is NOT the same as putting it into escrow.
- EpicEng 12y ago
  What text on that excerpt leads you to believe this was forced?
  - sneak 12y ago
    The "US Marshalls" part.
    - pg_is_a_butt 12y ago
      considering there is no "US Marshalls" part, and the Government was only referenced as "the Government".... you're an idiot.
    - EpicEng 12y ago
      So, in other words, only your own biases and preconceived notions. Edit: I'd be curious to hear the side of you down voters. Do you have a legitimate gripe with the accuracy of what i said, or do you just blindly believe that everything the government does is evil?
      - virtue3 12y ago
        So, in other words, only _your_ _own_ biases and preconceived notions. Edit: I'd be curious to hear the side of you down voters. Do you have a legitimate gripe with the accuracy of what i said, or do you just blindly believe that everything the government does is _for_the_greater_good_? Your argument is just shallow and not very constructive and having it reversed should make that somewhat apparent. Personally, the general consensus around these parts is that DPR was brought down with illegal methods by the FBI and then having the actual disclosure being horse shit (aka parallel construction). So yes, blindly trusting that the government is doing anything in good faith around this case is going to be pretty rare.
        chc 12y ago
        To recap: Kordless suggested that the sale was forced. EpicEng asked what indicated that it was forced. Sneak replied that "the 'US Marshalls' part" indicated that it was forced. EpicEng correctly noted that this does not strongly indicate that it was forced, and that to assume so based on the fact that the US Marshalls are involved is evidence of bias. To further recap: EpicEng did not suggest that "everything the government does is for the greater good," nor did EpicEng even say that the sale was not forced — only that we don't have a compelling reason to believe it was. Since EpicEng is merely asking for rational thought, I don't see how this can possibly be evidence of EpicEng's biases and preconceived notions. As a side note, your phrasing here suggests that the only alternatives in your mind are "blindly trust the government" and "blindly accuse everyone involved with the government of any wrongdoing possible," which are both irrational positions. We can consider whether the government is doing something wrong without jumping to conclusions as the people EpicEng was replying to seemed to do.
        saraid216 12y ago
    - nemo 12y ago
      You missed the "Government and Ulbricht agree" part.
      - CamperBob2 12y ago
        Sounds like 3 wolves and a sheep agreeing on lunch plans.
mod 12y ago
@kordless: It says they agree. Doesn't sound forced.
- scotty79 12y ago
  Maybe it's one of those things that should not be allowed even if people agree to it.
  - tedunangst 12y ago
    What is? Selling bitcoins should not be allowed?
    - scotty79 12y ago
      government selling your stuff even if you signed paper saying that you agree to it every agreement you signed with government should be implicitly treated as coerced
Alupis 12y ago
they could also possibly go up in value. does the government do the same with securities/stock owned too?
- tedunangst 12y ago
  The Marshals Service manages various types of assets, including real estate, vehicles, commercial businesses, cash, financial instruments, jewelry, art, antiques, collectibles, vessels and aircraft. The agency uses practices from private industry to ensure that assets are managed and sold in an efficient and cost-effective manner. http://www.usmarshals.gov/assets/ http://www.usmarshals.gov/assets/
duskwuff 12y ago
Tangent: Does anyone know if it's standard practice for these sorts of arrangements to be made if other goods become part of forfeiture proceedings? (For instance, shares of a volatile mutual fund. Or, to take it out of the financial realm entirely, a truckload of perishable vegetables.)
- jnaglick 12y ago
  I would guess that there has never been a case of a criminal investing their ill-gotten gains into "a truckload of perishable vegetables."
  - GabrielF00 12y ago
    While not really an analogue, there is the delightfully-named United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Approximately_64,695_Pounds_of_Shark_Fins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Approximately...
  - rsynnott 12y ago
    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/garlic-man-begley-released-early-from-prison-29156388.html http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/garlic-man-begle... Massive tax fraud case involving Secret Garlic; it happens :)
- einrealist 12y ago
  If the prosecution loses the case, it can be held liable in a civil case to losses the defendant made. So this is just an agreement between both sides to lower that risk and which does change nothing related to the case (so the judge will agree too). I guess, if there are no objections (even from a third party), this makes totally sense for anything else, too.

paulsutter 12y ago

The IRS will go after him for capital gains tax after the sale. The document makes no mention of a provision for him to pay his taxes due from the proceeds of the sale.

leogiertz 12y ago
Wouldn't that be good though? Then he's free to buy property and other things with his "laundered" money if he's cleared from any wrongdoing. It's not that easy to convert a large amount of bitcoins into money that you can use effectively.
- bengali3 12y ago
  IANACPA I believe that's a nice advantage of bitcoin? I would think individuals could fly to the caymans to cash out and avoid tax?