7 ms·

Operators of Coin.mx arrested by the FBI

56 points by fru2013 11y ago

greenyoda 11y ago
From the press release: MURGIO and his co-conspirators have also knowingly exchanged cash for Bitcoins for victims of “ransomware” attacks, that is, cyberattacks in which criminals (here, distributors of the ransomware known as “Cryptowall”) electronically block access to a victim’s computer system until a sum of “ransom” money, typically in Bitcoins, is paid to them. In doing so, MURGIO, and his co-conspirators knowingly enabled the criminals responsible for those attacks to receive the proceeds of their crimes, yet, in violation of federal anti-money laundering laws, MURGIO never filed any suspicious activity reports regarding any of the transactions.
- vonklaus 11y ago
  MURGIO and his co-conspirators allowed & enabled business owners to reclaim priceless data from their computers quickly as legitimate exchanges like coinbase would process transactions in a scope far outside the ransom window. Banks Contributing to Crime as well, however the people in charge don't get persecuted. Why is this different. 1. Wachovia laundered $378.4bn in drug money. Fined $160M[0] 2. HSBC £78 billion in dubious assets, £1.2 billion in fines[1] 3. JPMorgan Chase violated the Bank Secrecy Act and failed to file a Suspicious Activity Report after red flags about Madoff were raised at the bank. Madoff's Ponzi scheme totalled $65B[2] 4. Bank of America had money funneled through it by a Mexican cocaine-trafficking cartel, where it was laundered by buying US Racehorses[3] 5. CitiGroup facing federal inquiry about Banamex a mexican subsidiary, expects legal costs of $4B[6] US Government & Bitcoins 1. US Federal Agents extorted Ross Ulbrict and diverted seized funds to personal accounts[4] 2. Regulators "easing up" proposed "BitLicense", firms need only maintain adress information for their own customers and keep that info for 7 years instead of 10[5] WHAT IS THE POINT Murgio was using a well known "scheme" in the bitcoin world where one sells some cheap innocuous object for bitcoins. Having registered a transaction of incoming currency and then transferring bitcoins. Often a collectible is still shipped to legitimize the transaction[6]. So they were actually transacting collectibles and sending BTC with those collectibles. It is speculated on bitcointalk that the govnerment took control of their twitter[8][9] and used it to spread disinformation. So we have a regulatory framework that allows banks to transact with known drug cartels and create, distribute and short assets with no criminal liability, however an exchange transacting in approximately 1.8M dollars via collectible sales has been shut down. The exchange and parent company were "legitimate" businesses and the money transmitted was for actual goods sold. Similar to the JP Morgan/Madoff charges Murgio and Lebedev are being charged with failure to support suspicious activity. The US Gov't has shut down 70 "scams" some of which were likely actual scams[11], but this pattern is to consolidate bitcoin exchanges into as few entities as possible, force them to keep detailed information about their customers and have the ability to map transactions to actual people. This defunds lower level drugs transactions and allows them to keep control of a competing currency. Also, through some of these raids they became owners of bitcoins, which they sold or were stolen by agents working for them. In summation, the government is tightening control on BTC, while largely ignoring larger problems of big banks transacting with drug cartels and terrorists. They even named COINMX as being party to hacking as they facilitated transactions for the hacked parties. Big banks collude with drug cartels but no one is named criminally, small btc exchange is cited for money laundering. Edit 2: The arrests in Florida were tied to JP Morgan hack. It is not specified in what capacity and numerous people were named in the article, so while Murgio is mentioned by name as being arrested, it is unclear if he was one of the parties involved[12]. Coinbase also tieing them to hacking of JP Morgan[13] [0]http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/03/us-bank-mexico-drug-gangs http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/03/us-bank-mexico-... [1]http://www.businessinsider.com/stats-hsbc-money-laundering-and-tax-evasion-2015-2 http://www.businessinsider.com/stats-hsbc-money-laundering-a... [2]http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanvardi/2014/01/07/jpmorgan-chase-to-pay-1-7-billion-in-largest-bank-forfeiture-in-history-settles-criminal-madoff-charges/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanvardi/2014/01/07/jpmorgan-... [3]http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303292204577514773605576442?mg=reno64- http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230329220457... [4]https://www.fbi.gov/sanfrancisco/press-releases/2015/former-federal-agents-charged-with-bitcoin-money-laundering-and-wire-fraud https://www.fbi.gov/sanfrancisco/press-releases/2015/former-... [5]http://www.cnbc.com/2014/12/18/bitcoin-lawsky-softens-bitlicense-requirements.html http://www.cnbc.com/2014/12/18/bitcoin-lawsky-softens-bitlic... [6]http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/25/us-citigroup-banamex-probes-idUSKBN0LT2MT20150225 http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/25/us-citigroup-banam... [7][from linked article]front-company, “Collectables Club,” and maintaining a corresponding phony “Collectables Club” website. In doing so, they sought to trick the major financial institutions through which they operated into believing that their unlawful Bitcoin exchange business was simply a members-only association of individuals who discussed, bought, and sold collectable items, such as sports memorabilia. [8]https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1131070.0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1131070.0 [9]https://twitter.com/coin_mx/with_replies https://twitter.com/coin_mx/with_replies [10]http://www.coindesk.com/70-bitcoin-scams-shut-new-york-law-enforcement/ http://www.coindesk.com/70-bitcoin-scams-shut-new-york-law-e... [11]http://www.coindesk.com/70-bitcoin-scams-shut-new-york-law-enforcement/ http://www.coindesk.com/70-bitcoin-scams-shut-new-york-law-e... [12]http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/07/21/jpmorgan-chase-hack-arrests-israel-florida/30469203/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/07/21/jpmorgan-chas... [13]http://www.coindesk.com/coin-mx-arrested-operating-illegal-bitcoin-exchange/ http://www.coindesk.com/coin-mx-arrested-operating-illegal-b...
  - onion2k 11y ago
    Those are all examples of a legal, licensed banking entity breaking banking rules. Coin.mx took over a credit union and operated it without such a license. That's reason they've been arrested rather than just fined.
    - sschueller 11y ago
      So money laundry is legal if you have a banking license and pay the fee (fine). In HSBC's case that fine is less than my credit card APR.
      - coldtea 11y ago
        Money laundry is legal if the government and judges say so. And for most banks, they say so, or at least just give them a slap on the wrist. For bitcoin, or any independent individual doing it, they don't, and they never will. It's that simple.
      - rayiner 11y ago
        Money laundering just results in a fine when it happens in a Mexico branch and there is no evidence that someone higher up actually knew it was happening.
  - hackercurious 11y ago
    This may answer why the banks get off easy- Eric Holder, Wall Street Double Agent, Comes in From the Cold. Barack Obama's former top cop cashes in after six years of letting banks run wild. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/eric-holder-wall-street-double-agent-comes-in-from-the-cold-20150708?utm_source=newsletter&utm_content=daily&utm_campaign=070815_16&utm_medium=email&ea=cGVycnlhZGxlckBob3RtYWlsLmNvbQ== http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/eric-holder-wall-s...
    - vonklaus 11y ago
      Wow. That article doesn't try to be objective and man do I not blame them. That is appalling. This is why I am so apathetic about politics, how can anyone even stand up to this. He was appointed to his position from a firm that defends wall st as an occupation, puts kids gloves on during the biggest defrauding of America in recent memory and then goes back to his old firm for pro bono work. The non-elected officials have no accountability.
- cbd1984 11y ago
  Interesting charges. Are they ever applied to companies that allow money to be wired or otherwise transferred between banks?
  - patio11 11y ago
    HSBC penalized $2 billion for allowing HSBC Mexico to continue doing business with local currency exchanges which were likely also doing business with drug traffickers, etc etc. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20673466 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20673466
  - geofft 11y ago
    I assume that banks religiously file suspicious activity reports, especially if you go to them and say "Hey, please wire this ransom." Given where the FBI put the words "in violation of ... laws," my guess is that the charge is not for facilitating the money transfer itself, it's for doing so without reporting to the federal government.
  - MichaelCrawford 11y ago
    "The rich are different from you and me." -- F. Scott Fitzgeral, "The Great Gatsby"
    - aaronbrethorst 11y ago
      It's F. Scott Fitzgerald, and the quote is actually from another story of his, The Rich Boy. http://www.nytimes.com/1988/11/13/books/l-the-rich-are-different-907188.html http://www.nytimes.com/1988/11/13/books/l-the-rich-are-diffe...
obstinate 11y ago
One of the rules I live by: if I have to lie to a bank in order to accomplish a thing, I do not do that thing.
- vonklaus 11y ago
  If only banks had such a compunction.
  - obstinate 11y ago
    I know that this is a troll throwaway comment, so forgive me in advance for responding to it. But: If you have ever actually been lied to by a bank, it's likely that there's some law that penalizes that lie. You can probably have the situation corrected. Personally, no bank has ever lied to me. Expected me to read documents carefully? Yes. Lied? No.
    - vonklaus 11y ago
      I voice unpopular opinions on my own account, novel, I know. edit: banks are regularly fined for lying, cheating, stealing or laundering. Some of it is "legitimately" the cost of doing business. Some is quite obviously nefarious. JP Morgan was fined 13B for lying about mortgage risk and bundling knowingly dangerous securities[1] I removed the first link as it was proven to be, well, a lie. However, I think there is enough evidence of banks lying not spend ages posting links. [1]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/21/everything-you-need-to-know-about-jpmorgans-13-billion-settlement/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/21/e...
      - obstinate 11y ago
        To be precise, JP Morgan agreed to settle a case in which another bank they purchased did insufficient due diligence. The charges in the article you link speak of negligence, not lying. In the other case, I assume you know the difference between errors and deceit, so I'll withhold any comment on that. I didn't mean to say I thought your account was a throwaway. Just the comment -- in other words, I found it thoughtless, seeking of thoughtless upvotes, and still do. Banks practicing willful fraud as the subjects of this press release did remains a fairly rare phenomenon.
ChuckMcM 11y ago
I think they buried the lede there, it should have been FBI finds bitcoin exchange that still knows where all of the bitcoin it exchanged went :-)
kriro 11y ago
I have a question about a sentence from that announcement: """[...]and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.""" (towards the very end) Is this standard phrasing? As a non-native speaker this sentence seems odd. I'd have guessed that fact and allegation are xor. The sentence implies that there can be facts that are also allegations (or treated as allegations).
- Stratoscope 11y ago
  That's just poor wording. What it means is "Everything described as a fact in the complaint should be treated as an allegation." Criminal complaints are written as if everything in them is a true fact, unlike, say, newspaper articles that use phrases like "the alleged thief." For example, a newspaper article about this complaint would say things like "The FBI's criminal complaint alleges that..." - even though the complaint itself states it as a fact.
- traek 11y ago
  That means the statements are presented as facts, but are not yet proven and thus are technically only allegations. Generally, one shouldn't present allegations as facts (use phrases such as 'allegedly'), but doing so is standard for criminal complaints.
- slimsag 11y ago
  Fact and allegation are indeed xor. Saying that facts should be treated as allegations is.. well... strange. The phrasing probably comes from the legal-style-wording in which I imagine they are trying to ensure they are not able to be sued by the defendant under e.g. defamation by presenting their facts (by saying they are all allegations not facts, they cover all of their bases).
pash 11y ago
Interestingly, these charges are published on the same day that the first decentralized Bitcoin exchange opens its public beta [0]. And, yes, the whole point of a decentralized Bitcoin exchange is to circumvent the laws that the FBI accuses Coin.mx of breaking: Coinffeine takes advantage of the P2P model to avoid accepting deposits in bitcoins or fiat money, making it unnecessary to identify users or fulfill costly money laundering laws in each country. ... “Not having to identify users or enforce KYC laws has allowed us to design a much more scalable exchange model. [...]”, said Alberto Gómez Toribio, CEO of the company. For good and for ill, one of Bitcoin's core value propositions will always be its promise to vitiate governments' attempts to control their citizens' money. It's hard to tell who's winning so far, and harder to tell who's likely to win in the end. 0. http://blog.coinffeine.com/2015/07/21/coinffeine-launches-worlds-first-decentralized-bitcoin-exchange-70-countries/ http://blog.coinffeine.com/2015/07/21/coinffeine-launches-wo...
- jrcii 11y ago
  The government is likely to win in the end. It's not yet regulated because of it's small circulation and young age. If it were the first thing in history the government could not figure out a way to regulate I would be surprised. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1326 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?...
  - gosub 11y ago
    And failing that, government could declare "war on cryptocurrencies".
    - jMyles 11y ago
      The surest way for the government to lose.
  - kuschku 11y ago
    The things most bitcoin proponents dream about are... crazy. * No, you’re still going to pay taxes on your bitcoins. * No, if you fraud someone, you’ll still have to give them their money back. * No, bitcoin is totally meaningless if you can’t pay for food in it.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
fuck_bitcoin 11y ago
Not surprising, given that Bitcoin is a scam currency used mostly by criminals and nerds.

56 points by fru2013 11y ago

From the press release: MURGIO and his co-conspirators have also knowingly exchanged cash for Bitcoins for victims of “ransomware” attacks, that is, cyberattacks in which criminals (here, distributors of the ransomware known as “Cryptowall”) electronically block access to a victim’s computer system until a sum of “ransom” money, typically in Bitcoins, is paid to them. In doing so, MURGIO, and his co-conspirators knowingly enabled the criminals responsible for those attacks to receive the proceeds of their crimes, yet, in violation of federal anti-money laundering laws, MURGIO never filed any suspicious activity reports regarding any of the transactions.

vonklaus 11y ago
MURGIO and his co-conspirators allowed & enabled business owners to reclaim priceless data from their computers quickly as legitimate exchanges like coinbase would process transactions in a scope far outside the ransom window. Banks Contributing to Crime as well, however the people in charge don't get persecuted. Why is this different. 1. Wachovia laundered $378.4bn in drug money. Fined $160M[0] 2. HSBC £78 billion in dubious assets, £1.2 billion in fines[1] 3. JPMorgan Chase violated the Bank Secrecy Act and failed to file a Suspicious Activity Report after red flags about Madoff were raised at the bank. Madoff's Ponzi scheme totalled $65B[2] 4. Bank of America had money funneled through it by a Mexican cocaine-trafficking cartel, where it was laundered by buying US Racehorses[3] 5. CitiGroup facing federal inquiry about Banamex a mexican subsidiary, expects legal costs of $4B[6] US Government & Bitcoins 1. US Federal Agents extorted Ross Ulbrict and diverted seized funds to personal accounts[4] 2. Regulators "easing up" proposed "BitLicense", firms need only maintain adress information for their own customers and keep that info for 7 years instead of 10[5] WHAT IS THE POINT Murgio was using a well known "scheme" in the bitcoin world where one sells some cheap innocuous object for bitcoins. Having registered a transaction of incoming currency and then transferring bitcoins. Often a collectible is still shipped to legitimize the transaction[6]. So they were actually transacting collectibles and sending BTC with those collectibles. It is speculated on bitcointalk that the govnerment took control of their twitter[8][9] and used it to spread disinformation. So we have a regulatory framework that allows banks to transact with known drug cartels and create, distribute and short assets with no criminal liability, however an exchange transacting in approximately 1.8M dollars via collectible sales has been shut down. The exchange and parent company were "legitimate" businesses and the money transmitted was for actual goods sold. Similar to the JP Morgan/Madoff charges Murgio and Lebedev are being charged with failure to support suspicious activity. The US Gov't has shut down 70 "scams" some of which were likely actual scams[11], but this pattern is to consolidate bitcoin exchanges into as few entities as possible, force them to keep detailed information about their customers and have the ability to map transactions to actual people. This defunds lower level drugs transactions and allows them to keep control of a competing currency. Also, through some of these raids they became owners of bitcoins, which they sold or were stolen by agents working for them. In summation, the government is tightening control on BTC, while largely ignoring larger problems of big banks transacting with drug cartels and terrorists. They even named COINMX as being party to hacking as they facilitated transactions for the hacked parties. Big banks collude with drug cartels but no one is named criminally, small btc exchange is cited for money laundering. Edit 2: The arrests in Florida were tied to JP Morgan hack. It is not specified in what capacity and numerous people were named in the article, so while Murgio is mentioned by name as being arrested, it is unclear if he was one of the parties involved[12]. Coinbase also tieing them to hacking of JP Morgan[13] [0]http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/03/us-bank-mexico-drug-gangs http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/03/us-bank-mexico-... [1]http://www.businessinsider.com/stats-hsbc-money-laundering-and-tax-evasion-2015-2 http://www.businessinsider.com/stats-hsbc-money-laundering-a... [2]http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanvardi/2014/01/07/jpmorgan-chase-to-pay-1-7-billion-in-largest-bank-forfeiture-in-history-settles-criminal-madoff-charges/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanvardi/2014/01/07/jpmorgan-... [3]http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303292204577514773605576442?mg=reno64- http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230329220457... [4]https://www.fbi.gov/sanfrancisco/press-releases/2015/former-federal-agents-charged-with-bitcoin-money-laundering-and-wire-fraud https://www.fbi.gov/sanfrancisco/press-releases/2015/former-... [5]http://www.cnbc.com/2014/12/18/bitcoin-lawsky-softens-bitlicense-requirements.html http://www.cnbc.com/2014/12/18/bitcoin-lawsky-softens-bitlic... [6]http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/25/us-citigroup-banamex-probes-idUSKBN0LT2MT20150225 http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/25/us-citigroup-banam... [7][from linked article]front-company, “Collectables Club,” and maintaining a corresponding phony “Collectables Club” website. In doing so, they sought to trick the major financial institutions through which they operated into believing that their unlawful Bitcoin exchange business was simply a members-only association of individuals who discussed, bought, and sold collectable items, such as sports memorabilia. [8]https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1131070.0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1131070.0 [9]https://twitter.com/coin_mx/with_replies https://twitter.com/coin_mx/with_replies [10]http://www.coindesk.com/70-bitcoin-scams-shut-new-york-law-enforcement/ http://www.coindesk.com/70-bitcoin-scams-shut-new-york-law-e... [11]http://www.coindesk.com/70-bitcoin-scams-shut-new-york-law-enforcement/ http://www.coindesk.com/70-bitcoin-scams-shut-new-york-law-e... [12]http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/07/21/jpmorgan-chase-hack-arrests-israel-florida/30469203/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/07/21/jpmorgan-chas... [13]http://www.coindesk.com/coin-mx-arrested-operating-illegal-bitcoin-exchange/ http://www.coindesk.com/coin-mx-arrested-operating-illegal-b...
- onion2k 11y ago
  Those are all examples of a legal, licensed banking entity breaking banking rules. Coin.mx took over a credit union and operated it without such a license. That's reason they've been arrested rather than just fined.
  - sschueller 11y ago
    So money laundry is legal if you have a banking license and pay the fee (fine). In HSBC's case that fine is less than my credit card APR.
    - coldtea 11y ago
      Money laundry is legal if the government and judges say so. And for most banks, they say so, or at least just give them a slap on the wrist. For bitcoin, or any independent individual doing it, they don't, and they never will. It's that simple.
    - rayiner 11y ago
      Money laundering just results in a fine when it happens in a Mexico branch and there is no evidence that someone higher up actually knew it was happening.
- hackercurious 11y ago
  This may answer why the banks get off easy- Eric Holder, Wall Street Double Agent, Comes in From the Cold. Barack Obama's former top cop cashes in after six years of letting banks run wild. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/eric-holder-wall-street-double-agent-comes-in-from-the-cold-20150708?utm_source=newsletter&utm_content=daily&utm_campaign=070815_16&utm_medium=email&ea=cGVycnlhZGxlckBob3RtYWlsLmNvbQ== http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/eric-holder-wall-s...
  - vonklaus 11y ago
    Wow. That article doesn't try to be objective and man do I not blame them. That is appalling. This is why I am so apathetic about politics, how can anyone even stand up to this. He was appointed to his position from a firm that defends wall st as an occupation, puts kids gloves on during the biggest defrauding of America in recent memory and then goes back to his old firm for pro bono work. The non-elected officials have no accountability.
cbd1984 11y ago
Interesting charges. Are they ever applied to companies that allow money to be wired or otherwise transferred between banks?
- patio11 11y ago
  HSBC penalized $2 billion for allowing HSBC Mexico to continue doing business with local currency exchanges which were likely also doing business with drug traffickers, etc etc. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20673466 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20673466
- geofft 11y ago
  I assume that banks religiously file suspicious activity reports, especially if you go to them and say "Hey, please wire this ransom." Given where the FBI put the words "in violation of ... laws," my guess is that the charge is not for facilitating the money transfer itself, it's for doing so without reporting to the federal government.
- MichaelCrawford 11y ago
  "The rich are different from you and me." -- F. Scott Fitzgeral, "The Great Gatsby"
  - aaronbrethorst 11y ago
    It's F. Scott Fitzgerald, and the quote is actually from another story of his, The Rich Boy. http://www.nytimes.com/1988/11/13/books/l-the-rich-are-different-907188.html http://www.nytimes.com/1988/11/13/books/l-the-rich-are-diffe...

obstinate 11y ago

One of the rules I live by: if I have to lie to a bank in order to accomplish a thing, I do not do that thing.

vonklaus 11y ago
If only banks had such a compunction.
- obstinate 11y ago
  I know that this is a troll throwaway comment, so forgive me in advance for responding to it. But: If you have ever actually been lied to by a bank, it's likely that there's some law that penalizes that lie. You can probably have the situation corrected. Personally, no bank has ever lied to me. Expected me to read documents carefully? Yes. Lied? No.
  - vonklaus 11y ago
    I voice unpopular opinions on my own account, novel, I know. edit: banks are regularly fined for lying, cheating, stealing or laundering. Some of it is "legitimately" the cost of doing business. Some is quite obviously nefarious. JP Morgan was fined 13B for lying about mortgage risk and bundling knowingly dangerous securities[1] I removed the first link as it was proven to be, well, a lie. However, I think there is enough evidence of banks lying not spend ages posting links. [1]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/21/everything-you-need-to-know-about-jpmorgans-13-billion-settlement/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/21/e...
    - obstinate 11y ago
      To be precise, JP Morgan agreed to settle a case in which another bank they purchased did insufficient due diligence. The charges in the article you link speak of negligence, not lying. In the other case, I assume you know the difference between errors and deceit, so I'll withhold any comment on that. I didn't mean to say I thought your account was a throwaway. Just the comment -- in other words, I found it thoughtless, seeking of thoughtless upvotes, and still do. Banks practicing willful fraud as the subjects of this press release did remains a fairly rare phenomenon.

ChuckMcM 11y ago

I think they buried the lede there, it should have been FBI finds bitcoin exchange that still knows where all of the bitcoin it exchanged went :-)

kriro 11y ago

I have a question about a sentence from that announcement: """[...]and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.""" (towards the very end) Is this standard phrasing? As a non-native speaker this sentence seems odd. I'd have guessed that fact and allegation are xor. The sentence implies that there can be facts that are also allegations (or treated as allegations).

Stratoscope 11y ago
That's just poor wording. What it means is "Everything described as a fact in the complaint should be treated as an allegation." Criminal complaints are written as if everything in them is a true fact, unlike, say, newspaper articles that use phrases like "the alleged thief." For example, a newspaper article about this complaint would say things like "The FBI's criminal complaint alleges that..." - even though the complaint itself states it as a fact.
traek 11y ago
That means the statements are presented as facts, but are not yet proven and thus are technically only allegations. Generally, one shouldn't present allegations as facts (use phrases such as 'allegedly'), but doing so is standard for criminal complaints.
slimsag 11y ago
Fact and allegation are indeed xor. Saying that facts should be treated as allegations is.. well... strange. The phrasing probably comes from the legal-style-wording in which I imagine they are trying to ensure they are not able to be sued by the defendant under e.g. defamation by presenting their facts (by saying they are all allegations not facts, they cover all of their bases).

pash 11y ago

Interestingly, these charges are published on the same day that the first decentralized Bitcoin exchange opens its public beta [0]. And, yes, the whole point of a decentralized Bitcoin exchange is to circumvent the laws that the FBI accuses Coin.mx of breaking: Coinffeine takes advantage of the P2P model to avoid accepting deposits in bitcoins or fiat money, making it unnecessary to identify users or fulfill costly money laundering laws in each country. ... “Not having to identify users or enforce KYC laws has allowed us to design a much more scalable exchange model. [...]”, said Alberto Gómez Toribio, CEO of the company. For good and for ill, one of Bitcoin's core value propositions will always be its promise to vitiate governments' attempts to control their citizens' money. It's hard to tell who's winning so far, and harder to tell who's likely to win in the end. 0. http://blog.coinffeine.com/2015/07/21/coinffeine-launches-worlds-first-decentralized-bitcoin-exchange-70-countries/ http://blog.coinffeine.com/2015/07/21/coinffeine-launches-wo...

jrcii 11y ago
The government is likely to win in the end. It's not yet regulated because of it's small circulation and young age. If it were the first thing in history the government could not figure out a way to regulate I would be surprised. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1326 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?...
- gosub 11y ago
  And failing that, government could declare "war on cryptocurrencies".
  - jMyles 11y ago
    The surest way for the government to lose.
- kuschku 11y ago
  The things most bitcoin proponents dream about are... crazy. * No, you’re still going to pay taxes on your bitcoins. * No, if you fraud someone, you’ll still have to give them their money back. * No, bitcoin is totally meaningless if you can’t pay for food in it.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

fuck_bitcoin 11y ago

Not surprising, given that Bitcoin is a scam currency used mostly by criminals and nerds.