Bitcoin Forum

As Rick Falkvinge points out (http://falkvinge.net/2014/01/30/arrest-of-charlie-shrem-shows-dangerously-repressive-u-s-police-system/):


Indeed, this is a KIDNAPPING, not an arrest.

The funny thing is that even IF it were a genuine money laundering charge, Shrem would still be morally innocent, because the money was (allegedly) used to buy drugs, not to steal or murder or otherwise cause harm to someone.

If some guy in a suit who calls himself a "lawmaker" writes on a piece of paper that it is "unlawful" to eat chicken, and you are "caught" eating chicken and forcibly taken away from your home -- would you call that an "arrest" or a kidnapping?

Nobody is harmed by you eating chicken. Nobody was harmed by what Charlie Shrem is alleged to have done by people believing themselves to be "authority." If we assume the charges against Sherm are true, who exactly was harmed? The answer is obviously nobody.

(The charges are: one count of conspiring to commit money laundering, one count of operating an unlicensed money transmitting business, and one count of wilfully failing to file a suspicious activity report.)

As much as I like CoinDesk, they ran an article by a clueless/spineless Daniel Cawrey, who writes (http://www.coindesk.com/charlie-shrems-arrest-government-harassment-necessary-law-enforcement/):


Really? So if I tell you that I'm the authority and you have to do as I say but you don't, and I then kidnap (arrest) you, it's your negligence, not my actions, that got you into such a precarious position? Who exactly grants me or people who say they are "the government" such "authority"? Cawrey hints at the answer a bit longer down the article:

"The [Bank Secrecy Act] gives FinCEN the authority under the auspices of the US Treasury to “determine emerging trends and methods in money laundering and other financial crimes”, according to the FinCEN website." - Oh, so a piece of paper, entitled Bank Secrecy Act, written by some self-serving "lawmakers," is what gives some people the right to initiate violent action against people who don't have that right. I see.

Cawrey continues:


The detriment is the slavish behavior too many in the community are displaying, as exemplified by this journalistic travesty by Cawrey. If all it takes is an accusation of some abstract victimless "crime" to take down one of our own, then we have already lost. You might as well sell all your bitcoins right now for some safe dollars. As a commenter to that article points out:


Exactly. Continue to believe in witches if you'd like, but the simple and obvious truth is that a man, innocent of any moral wrong-doing, has been unjustly kidnapped and is being threatened with 25 years in a cage. The fact that the people responsible call themselves "government" has no bearing on the facts. If it was the Mafia doing it nobody would find it acceptable.

As another commenter points out:


The Winklevoss twins, who invested in Shrem's BitInstant, had this to say upon learning of Shrem's arrest:


It's one thing to state "we have no connection to Sherm's alleged illegal activities" but it's another to unthinkingly pander to the oppressor.

Should the public faces of Bitcoin be opportunists who worship at the altar of the state? I don't think so. Bitcoin is the most disruptive technology of our time, more disruptive than the Internet, as Andreas Antonopoulos (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRqgrCrzTJA) and Stefan Molyneux (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXLzX9jiqGk) eloquently explain from differing perspectives. It's people like these who should be the public faces of Bitcoin, not unthinking, cowardly, profit-driven weasels who support oppression if under the umbrella of "government."

The Bitcoin Foundation, a group that ostensibly aims to represent the interests of the Bitcoin community, offers no comment on the facts of the matter, choosing instead to distance itself from its now former member, implicitly making the ridiculous assumption that this kidnapping of one of their members has nothing to do with an attack on Bitcoin.

They -- the control freaks who believe they have authority over other people (exclusive rights) -- are obviously paying a lot more attention to Bitcoin now, this kidnapping happening about the same time as the NY hearings and Gavin's CFR meeting. What all thinking people of conscience should be doing is vocally supporting Shrem, not assuming he's "guilty as charged" and a "bad apple" in the Bitcoin community. If we blindly accept the oppressive "laws" of the system whose greatest threat is cryptocurrencies, rather than guide ourselves by morality and natural law, then they have a chance of destroying/controlling Bitcoin. If we unthinkingly act this way, then it's only a matter of time before they kidnap the next top Bitcoin person.

As Falkvinge says:


If we don't stand up for Shrem, we are complete idiots waiting for the next blow.

A valid point if true, though you forgot the "allegedly."

But did he really "turn around and break the rules he agreed to play by"? Or did he simply not do anything (negligence) because he felt that there was nothing wrong with what was happening? That seems to be the case with charges 1 and 3 (conspiracy to commit money laundering, failing to file a suspicious activity report).

Remember to separate legal "wrong-doing" from moral wrong-doing.

So, can you elucidate in which way he "turned around and broke the rules he agreed to play by"?

There is no difference between the two.

The fact that some kidnappers wear costumes does not change their actions from kidnapping to something that isn't kidnapping. Clothing isn't magical.

Moral issues aside,  if you choose to not follow known rules you take the risk of getting in trouble.

I haven't seen anything to suggest he was doing this for any other reason than to make a quick buck.  If he was doing it for "moral" reasons though,  I would have to assume his money would be more well spent lobbying to have certain laws changed ,  not much progress or help you can do if you're sitting in a jail cell.

I don't think non violent people should go to prison, I wish him the best of luck. With that said, he knows the rules  and risks and chose to play them how he wanted.

Shrem sold himself out to 'the man' than tried to get clever.

He fucked himself.


Typical kids with spines of a jellyfish.

This is why all alt-coins should stay decentralized...

Putting the issue aside of whether people should be allowed to do whatever they want to themselves.  He screwed over his own partner and his investors by engaging in activity that he said he would not engage in especially holding the title of Chief Compliance Officer.  BitInstant could have been what CoinBase is today and greater.  It's like asking people for money to invest in my coin and then going and using it for other purposes than to develop the coin.   He screwed himself over and the stakeholders of his company out of potential future revenue.

Well put.

I would add:

What goes around, comes around.

I've seen this countless times in life. Sooner or later, those who act in a certain way will face consequences.


He's done a great service to the community with his company, and if he stuck to doing business the 'right way', he would probably still be doing it.

The difference is psychological, not physical. When you hear of someone being arrested, you react in a certain conditioned way (hmm, what did he do?). In contrast, hearing of someone being kidnapped sparks emotions like empathy. And if Shrem didn't engage in any moral wrong-doing, then it's more accurate to say that he was kidnapped, rather than arrested.



So you're saying that just because you don't happen to agree with the law against eating chicken, that doesn't invalidate that law?

Why would you take an abstract idea like a piece of legislation as the authority over your own moral reasoning? Are you unconsciously surrendering your sovereignty and freedom to a piece of paper written by some self-serving weasel in a suit? Or am I reading you wrong?




Can someone who believes Shrem got what he deserved explain what he did wrong, morally?

Shrem is giving BTC a bad name, buying drugs off the Silk Road, laundering money and knowingly letting unlawful things slide by his attention!

This is bad publicity for BTCitcoins network, but they are just trying to use Shrem as a international example for others involving themselves in illegal festivities within the US

bitcoin was had the silk road propaganda for years. so really it is not that damaging, it is just trying to keep the propaganda machine fuelled to the same level.

i do agree they are using shrem as a President so show other exchanges that the US government does not take money laudering lightly. but the failure in this scheme of theirs, if the first post of this thread is to be believed (concerning the alleged broken laws):


only licenced money transmitters are required to file SAR reports by law.. which must mean he had a licence, to have failed his duties under the licence.. which counter-acts this alleged crime:


.... i am now intrigued and might start looking deeper into the facts of this, as something does not look right

The people in the suits that write things on paper have the "right" to kidnap you because they have more guns and weapons at their disposal than you do.

That is the only thing that matters.

whos the chief compliance officer of HSBC or Wachovia or JP morgan, is he still at large or caged? hhhmmm

What Shrem deserve is up to a court of justice to decide, not me, you or anyone else. Moreover, he did not made anything morally wrong. This is not about his moral views, this is about the agreement he made with the authorities. He promised to comply with certain requirements and failed to keep up with the promise. In other words, he agreed to play by certain rules and was caught cheating. Now a court of justice will decide what punishment he will receive. I personally think he will not be jailed. He is going to be offered the opportunity to help the authorities collect evidence to build other cases. The authorities know that is much better having him around to help them rather than having he locked in a jail for the next decades.

Most likely when his company applied to be a money transmitter business. Do you think compliance is just a verbal agreement? I am certain that there is a document with his signature where he declares to be aware of the requirements made by the authorities.

The weight of his crimes don't matter much. Shrem and other high profile bitcoiners are more dangerous to the Goldman Sachs establishment than the president of Syria. So that tiran is out and Shrem is in. And he stays in. Later they will create some Guantanamo bay-ish place for us. CU there! 

The mainstream has a slavish mindset, that's why Bitcoin needs a slavish face to go mainstream. In the meantime things like dark wallet will continue to develop and empower bitcoin users.

There are very few crimes out of the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) in the world, that aren't victimless.

The delusions of nerds....thinks they are important enough to warrant imprisonment in guantanamo

LOL

So you'd support hunting them down just because the government says it's illegal?  No other reason needed?

I think it's damn crap they disown themselves of their "friend" like this right away. Everyone distances themselves immediately. If this were a friend of mine, and I saw no moral wrong in their actions, damn straight I would be stirring the pot.

BitconEXpress has shown us he's subscribes to the bootlicker ethos.  It's easy to see why tyranny exists, why the tragedies of civilization happen.  In parallel universes, he's Stalin's deputy and Hitler's willing executioner.

I'm taking up a collection to send Charlie some necessary supplies to make his stay more comfortable. Anyone want to contribute?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ScAT4rxTMiw/TbXlfNUiPuI/AAAAAAAAAAU/3NpNrhjiG1o/s1600/MarlboroGreens.pnghttp://c1.soap.com/images/products/p/abm/abm-001_1z.jpghttp://mochadad.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/soap-on-a-rope.jpg

I think the totalitarians would rather you send him this, so they can "win" without having to bring him to trial.

http://www.nessersbigandtall.com/images/leatherstrap.jpg

That wont set an example. He's going to be the scapegoat and Karpeles might be his cellmate.

Shrem's issue is fairly clear cut.  Even if one disagrees with money laundering laws it's pretty clear he decided to break the law when specifically tasked with upholding it as part of his job.  The bigger issue is arrests like this
http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/2-Arrested-Charged-in-Bitcoin-Money-Laundering-Scheme-Miami-Dade-State-Attorney-Says-244066451.html

Absolutely. But these people have actually managed to convince us that their doing so is somehow legitimate/acceptable, simply by calling themselves "authority"! If I force you to do something at gunpoint, that's wrong, but if I'm "authorized" by other people who call themselves "government," then it's OK!



Your argument is premised in the idea that it's OK for "the authorities" (i.e. people who believe they have the right to initiate violent action against others who don't have that right) to kidnap anyone they want and THEN put them through a trial to decide their fate. Imagine that YOU were kidnapped for failure to comply with some bullshit regulation, and people then say "it's up to a court of justice to decide, not me, you or anyone else, what Augusto Croppo deserves."

Also implicit in your argument is the idea of a fair trial in the American "justice system," a preposterous notion on numerous levels.

If they allow him, Shrem will pay much of his earned money for his freedom. He'll probably accept a plea bargain rather than face 25 years in a cage. You seem to think they will turn Shrem into a rat, so that he can help them hurt other innocent people. I would hope Shrem has more integrity than that.



Is there no other consideration in your thinking? No morality, right or wrong, that kind of thing? Just what the government father figure says? Please answer this question, BCX.



+1

Shrem underestimated the evil of the system he was getting himself into, as can be seen by his unencrypted emails giving a pass to the activities of BTCKing. He could not have imagined facing 25 years in a cage for "failing to submit a suspicious activity report."

Go to hell you lying fuck.

No, we can't "disagree on beliefs and live in peace". One side has an army of armed mercenaries who kick the teeth in of anyone who disagrees with them.

What you're actually saying is this: "If there is any one thing about the USA that is great, it is the fact that if people like you I disagree on beliefs, then people like you have to obey people like me in order to live in peace."

If you're going to be an outright sociopath, then do it openly at least and stop insulting our intelligence. Take your smug disingenuity and shove it up your ass.

I think you mean he would be morally not guilty.

I've met Charlie at several events and had a chance to work with him at the Foundation when I was bootstrapping their education committee. Charlie seemed to me to be an intelligent and passionate man who fell into a role beyond his skill set and years. He definitely was trying hard, but he apparently didn't learn the lessons all entrepreneurs need to know- surround yourself with good, reliable people, protect yourself from the consequences of success, admit you don't know it all (compliance officer?) and be careful with the law.

I really hope this matter can be resolved quickly and without drama to the ecosystem. For what it's worth, I think he will eventually recover and continue to be an entrepreneur. I also see this as a transition stage for bitcoin from its early mtgox, silkroad, bitinstant and 10000 btc pizza days to a more mature and regulated ecosystem. When I was in Miami, I couldn't help but feel that some of the magic was lost, but I did like seeing Rassah manning the bitcoin experts booth.

Many good points however I would just like to state that the premise that we operate under the "rule of law" in America has been clearly proven to be a fallacy, with the 2008 financial crisis and NSA spying being just two out of hundreds of examples of the selective application of law to certain individuals and organizations.

Its pretty simple, Charlie doesnt know the right people and doesnt have enough pull in the right places. Unfortunately, he was a little bit too outspoken and rich to be fully ignored.

Part of what makes you 'human' is your ability to act beyond some impulses. People who bitch and moan about 'government' all day and think they know better really don't have such skills.

Best thing is, they deluded themselves to be opposite of what they really are, just like justusranvier for example ;D

The truth, and nothing but the truth.

I would respect anyone's wishes, and decisions. I hope they are prepared to respect mine. And the consequences of their decisions as they are prepared to respect the fact that they are in a position to make decisions of any kind at all.

Also, to whoever thinks bitching about shit means you know what it means to 'stand up against DA MAN', kindly go fuck yourself. Hippies tried that shit and now they are in the dust bin of history along with those deluded communists and Das Kapital.

A grown man knows the world he lives in, and sees values as well as things that need changing. If crypto community is to grow and mature, you better start thinking outside of OP's persecution complex delusions and begin behaving like a professional.

If anyone wants to protest this kid's arrest........


Well they can't. He played and lost.


'Slavish mindset' LOL this kind of childish smugness drags good causes through the mud.

OK, I understand you now. May I introduce you to Ken O'Keefe (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qrm-jxVnJU)? He was a marine (and as the saying goes, he still is) just like you, but at some point had an epiphany, an awakening. He saw reality as it is, rather than how he was told it is. He regained his ability to think for himself.



How can you be so sure you know the world you live in? Over 1 billion of us are starving, yet we have the resources and technology to easily feed and shelter every human being on the planet. If you still have the sense of compassion that you were born with, you'll know that this fact alone proves that there is something fundamentally awry in the system we are living within.

On an unrelated note, I read that in one state students who were found to be too intelligent was dismissed from the police academy.

And in Denmark, the Jehovah's Witnesses had some senior members that complained about youngsters doing advanced educations, as this tended to make them think for themselves and leave Jehovah's Witnesses.

The people in power like to have obedient people beneath them that will do whatever they're told.

Drugs are not moral that's why they are illegal.  There's a difference between what's moral and not moral and that's called LAW.  don't like it, CHANGE IT AMERICA

You can't be serious...

Who are you to pass that kind of general moral judgment, stating it as if fact?

Law, as you are thinking of it (legislation), has nothing whatsoever to do with morality.

Looks like you also believe that the "democratic process" is the only way to change things, how cute.

I'd like to add two things to this, as an east-coast American lifelong marijuana smoker and social-anxiety sufferer with PTSD. I could still today go to jail for reducing my suffering with weed.

Global war on drugs a "billion dollar failure" (http://m.aljazeera.com/story/201456212727317668)

Ending the War on Drugs, with Compassion (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlD6OdbuDK4)

Mala prohibita has got to GO! For the same reason sexual reproductive laws have got to GO!!! These bodies belong to us, not them!

Fuck Amerikkka and its cartel-enriching drug war, fuck the CIA, fuck the DEA, fuck the NSA. They can all go to hell, and if they ever send armed men to my door that's exactly where I'll send them.

See also: The long reach of reason (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk7gKixqVNU).

This didn't start with with Shrem, and it won't end with Shrem. The "make an example" to scare the masses tactic is very, very old.  

How did that work out with the drug war? And the copyright war?   ::)

Relax everyone, Bitcoin is going to be fine. Their tricks are old and tired, and we know them well. They're losing their power to control us as we speak.