Bitcoin Forum

http://www.coinfinance.com/news/charlie-shrem-pleads-guilty

I know all of you are aware of this news already. I'm interested in what you think about it.

Should he have plead guilty? Fight for Bitcoin rights and become a martyr in prison or save himself?
Was a crime really committed or is this just a government attack on Bitcoin?
Was this a "scare" prosecution to make the rest of us "behave"?
Do you believe if he is guilty of the crimes accused he should pay for his actions? (the govt is right)
Do you think part of his "deal" includes selling out his friends, partners and clients?
Was this because there was already an ongoing investigation of Silk Road and he was unlucky enough to be dealing with them?
Do you know any insider info about what's really happening?

Here's my take on it. I like Charlie. I bought some stuff from him when he was selling in the marketplace on this forum. I had a problem with my order and he quickly made it right. I think he's a cool guy that fucked up. I don't think he sold anyone out. I think prosecutors like to put things to bed quickly so they make offers that are too good to be true that way they don't have to go to court. I think they had been looking at Silk Road for a long time and he was just a small part of that investigation.

I know people hate self moderated threads so I purposely didn't make this one. However, this isn't meant to be Charlie's public crucifixion so please be civil. You don't have to slander the man to state your opinion, he's been through enough.

He took the lesser crime to avoid a long possible sentence.
I'd think most of us, if put in his position, would be forced to do the same thing.

Was this a scare prosecution? - probably yes. The government has wanted to make an example of large players in the bitcoin world to discourage people from using bitcoin for illegal purposes.

Is he actually guilty? - technically yes. Although the reason he is guilty is really only because he did not reasonably gather the identity of the people he was selling bitcoin to. If he made a better effort to gain the identity of his buyers of bitcoin then he would not be guilty. The government really has him on nothing more then a technicality.

Do you think part of his "deal" includes selling out his friends, partners and clients? - based on the indictment it looks like the government thinks he acted alone. The fact that he is/was the CEO of bitinstant would likely mean that he is the highest ranking person in this "crime"

im sure he wasnt thrilled about pleading guilty

When it came down to it, he had to think about the possibility of going away for a decade or longer. Gotta think about family first, always take the sure thing and the slap on the wrist versus possibly walking away scott free, but also possibly going away for a long, long time.

that is normal behavior

So what is the maximum sentence for "aiding and abetting an unlicensed money transmitter"? Seems pretty mild compared to the original charges so I am not surprised he took the deal. Unfortunately this also means that a court won't be considering the legality of a company like BitInstant. From what I remembered they'd made some effort to remain legit.

I think he was (technically) guilty and others will learn from his mistakes.

I assume he's banned from working in the money-transmitter space.  Is he banned from operating Bitcoin businesses generally?

I am guessing he pled guilty to avoid being hit with more severe charges
Then again, maybe I watch too many US law and order shows!

I'm sure he only plead guilty because that was his only option. Plead not guilty and he'd probably get a hell of a lot longer. What has the other guy pleaded?

Smells like a 12th hour deal was struck to give him the opportunity of a lighter sentence

Don't blame him for going down that path

Wont u face problem for discussing your sentence openly in public ?

Indeed you cant fight the machine single handed. Im sure in the end bitcoin will have been better off for charlie shrem contributions. 

I think anyone in this kind of situation would have taken any chance they had to get themselves a lighter sentence even if it meant pleading guilty. It seems this was the case and I know many of us if put into the same situation would have taken the same decision.

No

max for his charge is 5 years, but he won't get sentenced to that.

Thanks for dropping in Charlie. I knew you would. I read a Reddit thread that was accusing you of all kinds of horrible things that I knew weren't true and I wanted to give you a chance to address them if you could and not jeopardize your case. Reddit's down voting system keeps good answers at the bottom and lies at the top. Besides I don't think anyone would believe it was you on Reddit.

All of the questions in the OP were gleaned from that Reddit post. Can you address some of them without compromising your case? Do you believe you were just in the wrong place at the right time because they were investigating Silk Road already? Obviously you have the insider info I was talking about. Do you think your prosecution was meant to make the rest of us behave? Should we fear NY as a place to do business (are they gunning for us)? I know Coinbase already put the application in for a Bitlicense in NY. Should they withdraw it? (keep 49 states and give up on that one?)

What would you recommend people do to avoid being in the same situation?

Especially anybody with a family...imagine having to go decades without seeing those people you hold most dear in your life.

I'd rather be dead. I'm not alone (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/suicides-kill-more-inmates-homicide-overdoses-accidents-combined-f8C11072563).

Good luck Charlie, May the force be with you.

Culex

Charlie made the only sensible choice, hopefully his new business will be a lasting success.  :)

The government (both federal and state) tends to charge people with very serious crimes with harsh potential punishments and then offer a plea deal in which they get a very minor sentence.

It almost always makes sense to plead guilty unless you can prove your innocence as it is too much of a gamble to go to trial.

Well, I don't think all the facts have been publicly exposed. However, from what has been made available, it sounds as if Mr. Shrem has indeed engaged in what the state terms 'money laundering'.

More importantly, I find the entire doctrine of 'money laundering' being a crime to be an abhorrent miscarriage of justice. If I were to be on the jury for this case (as if), this latter point would dominate my balloting.

I also find the established practice of prosecutors 'throwing the book' at the accused, in the expectation of being able to get the accused to self-incriminate to a lesser charge to be yet another abhorrent miscarriage of justice.

Though I certainly do not fault Mr. Shrem for acquiescing to what he felt was the best of the shitty array of available options.

It is easy to say other people should martyr themselves for the cause. It is mach more difficult to be so idealistic when it is your freedom and livelihood in question. I think he did the right thing for himself and his family. There is no shame in that.

 

I must admit I'm disappointed with you Charlie.  If you are truly innocent then you must not plead guilty to *ANY* charges that you did not commit.   We cannot permit the Federal Mafia to simply threaten everyone into submission.  This sets a very bad precedent for the future and other Bitcoin users.

It is easier to say such things when your own life is not on the line; however, it is no less true that every time someone pleads guilty to a crime they did not commit the world dies a little.

Well, I think he very likely committed a "crime" according to US law. And given the offer of a deal like this, what other choice could he have made realistically? These aren't the type of laws that the public are really going to care about or feel that they are unjust, so any type of protest by him would likely end up failing.

That is the sad truth of the world we live in. My grandfather used to tell me to pick my battles and to make sure they are worth fighting. This kind of battle just isn't worth the risk. I understand and agree with your stance on this in principle, but losing your loved ones and freedom for what could be decades is a really high price to pay.    

I think that an intelligent realistic perspective. Yes, he was guilty of breaking an unjust law designed to allow the government to attack anyone they disagree with indiscriminately.  I don't think anyone would fault him for protecting himself. There aren't many Gandhi's out there protecting the greater good. That's what makes them special. I seriously doubt even if he fought the complaint any good would come out of it. I would have done the same thing.

The government passed a bad law - prohibition. They created an underworld of people willing to break that law. Illegal alcohol led to other illegal activities like gambling, prostitution, murder, bribery and general rampant violence. During that time the police murdered as many people as the criminals they were fighting. The government created a criminal element that survived long beyond the prohibition era. Bad laws turn good people into criminals. Homeland security can currently hold U.S. citizens detained on U.S. soil in military custody for an indefinite detention period without trial. Bad laws are stacking up here faster than we can track them.

1) There has never been a rule on Silk Road that it was only to be used for illegal exchanges
2) Even if there were such a rule, mala prohibita of human rights (like self-harm without harming others) is indefensible bullshit

I hope this ends well for Charlie Shrem. I really like him too and a technicality should not destroy someones reputation.

guess u dont know how the system works..

if they have proof of communications btween the two parties then that alone is enough for 'conspiracy". then theres proof of FIAT bank transfers.

these days saying "i didnt know" is not enough. thats what government are trying to push, for people to learn everyones life story before moving money to be 100% sure its not used for illegal activity.

so if there was even the smallest indication shrem knew any illicit possible uses of the funds, then pleading innocent wont help. he would have to have lots of documents and proof of no knowledge, which is harder to prove.

so why plead innocent if they have any indication that is provable against him, meaning a lengthier sentance due to basically lying under oath.. or plead guilty and get a light sentance for the things he did actually do and maybe get a deal to have other charges he didnt do  thrown out, due to him being honest and above board

You need to take your chances of winning at trial into consideration. If there is evidence against him and the potential penalty is great then it would be better to accept a guilty plea, especially if the plea deal would likely result in no jail time.

No one ever wins at trial.

Can't compare white collar crime with rape and murder.

Charlie Shrem was just buying and selling bitcoin. It is a victimless crime.

So true. When the state is out to make an example (and we know they are), it's not going to turn out well if you try to fight it. Let them make their example in a way that minimizes the destruction wreaked on your life, and move on. Bitcoin will be fine.

Sooner or later their misdeeds will come back around to bite them in the ass, it is the way of the world. No tyranny can continue forever.

I made no such comparison.

Pleading guilty to a victimless crime that prohibits you from your right to self-defense is suicidal. No need to imprison someone if you can simply murder their disarmed and defenseless ass after collecting their fines.

George Zimmerman won at trial. I don't think the government offered him a very good plea deal if anything at all. They also did not have very good/much evidence against him, as they could not even get a grand jury to bring an indictment.

I think a jury would likely get confused if this case went to trial and would likely side with the government. This was a good idea considering the potential maximum sentence.  

The man only has one life so I wouldn't expect him to be trying to play a Bitcoin martyr.  The feds are pro's at making people take deals they wouldn't normally take.  The system is so rigged it it is not funny, especially if you don't have a great legal team and the money to pay them..  The fact that he pleads guilty is in many ways a win for the FEDS and a loss for the little guy who got caught in the wrong place and didn't know the right people. 

IDK how much him fighting (successfully) the charges would help bitcoin. I think the case is really more about money laundering laws then anything else.

If anything, the case is about someone who did business and made money off the silk road site regardless of the morality of what was being done. I think the government wants to prosecute as many people who sold on silk road as possible to make others who sell/make money off other similar sites afraid to do business on those sites.

I do not understand the thread.   You are not a moron and yet you started this thread.   He clearly broke the law and then put in writing how to continue to break the law and "he would not notice".   Whether you agree with the law is irrelevant.   He was not in the "gray area", he was fully entrenched in the black.   Pleading guilty to save his ass and let the government set a precedent is the best outcome for him.

Nothing is ever as black and white as your making this sound. I started the thread to discover what people think about what the government is doing not to hold a trial.

Disagreeing with bad laws is not irrelevant. If I were the head of a Homeland Security office, under the NDAA, I could arrest your mother and hold her until the day she dies without a trial in a military prison. I think Rosa Parks would believe ignoring bad laws is relevant. She was tried and convicted using Jim Crow laws because she refused to give up her seat on a bus. People have been hunted down and killed to keep marijuana out of this country. Now it's legal in Colorado and Washington. Anti corruption and money laundering laws are a joke coming from a government that's as corrupt as the U.S. Government. Especially considering how much public money the CIA launders for its supply of arms to foreign factions to overthrow governments.

Hmm well if it is obvious that you will be found guilty and sentenced, it may indeed be better to accept the "lesser evil" and come forward for yourself. I'm certain he will have discussed this tactic with his lawyers well enough!

He can't be found guilty because he's pleading guilty.

Your point about this mainly being about money laundering is fair and makes sense.  My issue is more so about how the court system works to make an example of the little guy.  There are far bigger players who get caught laundering money and cooperating with murders and criminals and the people are told they are "to big to fail".  The double standard in the court system by the have and have not's is my real point I'm trying to get across.  For me this is just a witch hunt to take down some undesirables.  Mr Shrem made a bad decision and it caught up with him so don't think I'm calling him an angel that is being attacked for nothing.  I'm just interested bigger picture and the tactics used by the feds.

I love Charlie Shrem, and I support a right to financial privacy.  The whole idea of "money laundering" being a crime precludes a right to financial privacy.  The people who make this kind of stuff illegal are basically from a different planet than me, or a totally alien culture.

They're from planet "we print the money in this town, and we give it to our criminal bankster pals. DON'T GO PRINTING YOUR OWN MONEY BEHIND OUR BACKS YOU FUCKWITS, WE'RE THE FUCKIN MAFIA!"

Exactly, it's not about justice, it's about setting an intimidating example in a futile attempt to scare people away from both dark markets and bitcoin. It won't work.

When you are kidnapped, cooperate with your captors if it will result in your freedom. Even McCain cooperated with the Vietnamese when he was a prisoner to get through his captivity.

There is no shame in taking the shortest path toward freedom.

Govt threatened him with 20+ years, what would you do?  Roll the dice or take probation ...

My point from the beginning. If you have a family to think about, they come before public perception...always!

Btc price will be hit maybe or not with recent good news of overstock. i duno

Difficult. I'm no lawyer, I guess they do know what is the best way to go in this case! I think it's the safest way - in some cases - to actually plead guilty if it reduces your sentence, or if it's some kind of 'deal' you made with the prosecution... I don't know the exact background, though!

Charlie, how much time they stick u with?

Why is he only one being prosecuted?

There are still a lot of people selling on localbitcoin.

I think his case is being used to set an example and make us behave. Everyone trading cash and Bitcoins without the proper license on localbitcoins is most certainly in violation of the law. I wish DnT was in this thread. He studied up on it and could explain the ins and outs.

I think he did what he had to do.

You are actually not qualified to make the statement that he broke the law. Only a judge or a jury that is presiding over his specific case is able to make that conclusion.

You have also only heard one side of the story as to what happened - the governments (prosecution) and even this is not their entire side because you have not been able to evaluate the sources of information that the government used to make the conclusions that they made.

I think it is more about buying and selling drugs over the internet. They charged Ross with the harshest statutes that were designed for drug lords. They changed that guy in FL with money laundering when he sold bitcoin on LBC at outrageous prices (huge mark up) to a undercover cop that told him he was going to use the bitcoin to buy drugs and do other illegal things.   

You may be right. It might not have anything to do with Bitcoin. It may just be a warning to anyone trying to bypass drug laws using the deep web.

More evidence to support this theory is the fact that Mark (gox) was violating AML rules for years but was never charged with any crimes. Granted homeland security did seize their bank account, but this was likely to try to become more strict for AML (to make it easier to figure out who Ross was).

Also, how many traders on LBC or craigslist do you think there are that even attempts to follow AML rules? My guess is less then 20% on LBC and less then 5% on craigslist. Same with people trading fiat for bitcoin on this forum. People are outright breaking the law out in the open (that is bitcoin related) but the government is not doing anything about it. Granted these are all very small "fish" and there are no real victims.

Charlie was doing pretty much exactly this (granted he was making more money from it) but the only other real difference is that he was profiting from and helping SR.

If you had AML/KYC info for that guy that was selling them to SR then you are not guilty.

I'm sorry for you bro!
but actually for the community it's very good news!!! ;D ;D ;D
People will think twice if it's worth getting involved in laundering stolen mt.gox coins for example
They will rot in hell when we get them >:( >:( >:(

From what I understand he is pleading guilty to knowingly selling Bitcoin when he knew they would be used for Silk Road so it doesn't matter what info he had.  While it is well known Silk Road was used for some illegal activities not everything there was illegal.  BitInstant's part seems be relatively small compared to people actively involved in planning and conducting substantial illegal activities on a regular basis.  The documents show the activity he is pleading to was more of an aberration to get the guy out of his hair rather than some type of ongoing effort.  Anything else is irrelevant since that is what he is pleading to.  I think he will get probation.

Even probation is too much unless he knew what the coins would be used for. If I sell Bitcoins to someone from Localbitcoins and he said I work at Newegg but I deal drugs too. Would I be guilty? How am I supposed to know whether he's using them for a purchase at Newegg or to buy drugs. That seems like a lot of circumstantial bullshit to me. Or I don't know the whole story.

I believe he is admitting he knew the coins were going to be resold guy was not a licenses transmitter and that they were sold on Silk Road.  The docs shows he told the guy no a few times but gave in at one point.  That is different then someone who planned a business around illegal activities.

Ah, that's the missing piece of the puzzle.

Jailtime for this is an absurd injustice. This is small fries, it should be a slap on the wrist fine - $15,000 at most.

Well very little extra money, but this isn't the point. The point was the volume, however it looks like the volume really didn't make a difference on your bottom line.

EDIT: I do remember doing rough math when the indictment came out and calculated that the amount of money you made from allegedly selling to SR was ~$10k.....I hardly think a 30 year sentence is appropriate with this level of profits. 

This is exactly true!

Hmm... this is a bit more complex than I thought earlier. Technically saying, if we exchange our coins to cash to some other guy, and if that guy uses those coins to purchase weed or other stuff from dark markets such as SR 2.0, then we could be prosecuted. The FBI could just create some false evidence claiming that the original seller had known of these plans in advance.  >:(

That's really good news! You're going to get off easy and it was all BS to begin with. I had heard and believed so many rumors flying around that I didn't know what to believe. I even started repeating some of them myself. I formally apologize Charlie for being a part of that rumor mill.  I'm glad you were around to clear it up.

Hey, Charlie - thanks for the great service.  I never used Silk Road (haven't ever done drugs in my life, though I affirm everyone should be legally free to do so), but I used BitInstant several times last year.  It was fantastic, and I was sorry to see it go.  I hope your legal woes will soon be as far behind you as they can possibly be.

I deny anyone's right to force people to follow these laws.

There are also no victims from what BitInstant/Charlie Shrem is alleged to have done.

The only people being victimized here are the ones having their anonymity taken away, and Charlie who is having his rights to liberty and property infringed.  The only criminals are the ones enforcing this immoral law.

Makes no moral difference anyway since people have a perfectly legitimate right to buy drugs as well as to buy stuff from Newegg.

That's like saying Rosa Parks should have received a slap on the wrist.

Enforcing unethical laws is unethical.

That's some bullshit, he didn't do anything wrong.

This article seems more interesting for me http://www.coinfinance.com/news/charlie-shrem-pleads-guilty

"They had no choice. When federal agents were investigating silk road they discovered Shrem was helping launder money. They can't just ignore crimes that are taking place right in front of them. Most banks execs are smart enough not to detail their illegal activites in email. - neededtobesaid"

Yes and No.
As prosecutors, yes, they have a public obligation to fulfill their role as, well, prosecutors. However, the law affords them considerable latitude in how they do that—and for good reason.

The best exercise of justice lies in the ability to weigh the many factors involved, and effect a reasonable degree of pressure and/or punishment. What I see here, is not that. I see the typical "throw the book" at him, hope the charges stick, resulting in an easy plea deal—which they got.

I've never known a prosecutor to give a second thought as to whether (and to what extent) they should have charged. Nor whether they just ruined someone's life in the process.

For crying out loud, we have grandmas in federal penitentiary for growing and consuming cannabis for their arthritis. In one case I was reading about, an elderly lady invited an officer in her home for tea, only to be imprisoned, when he saw her plants in her kitchen.
Shrem's amateur-ness, clearly evident, is more of a sign of his lack of criminal intention. Most pros in this business, who know very well what they're doing from the start, take the necessary steps from square-one to maintain security and plausible deniability.

Lastly, money-laundering is fundamentally a questionable "crime" to begin with. If I think of routing certain funds in a certain way with a certain intention: it's legal. But if I think about it in a different way, even if I'm essentially doing the same thing, and am willing to disclose my thought process and paper trail, then it can be illegal. This is one of the reasons banks place a premium on confidentially of their internal records. No matter what their intentions, if records are made public, they may be used to construct a case against them, regardless of their intent.

This is also a reason that some folks (perhaps more on the extreme side) call money-laundering a "thought-crime." It's already illegal to do whatever the action was, that the "laundering" is suspected of aiding. Why not simply prosecute that original action? And if the core action wasn't illegal, is it even laundering then?

In the case of Shrem, so what if he sold bitcoin to someone—even if they told him they were going to spend it at the Silk Road? Several items for sale at the Silk Road are perfectly legal. Furthermore, even if someone told Shrem they wanted bitcoin for the explicit reason of purchasing drugs, who's to say those drugs aren't legal in that person's jurisdiction? The Silk Road sells internationally.

I think that we need to stop looking after every movement of Charlie and wait for the result of his activity

I think the point is that this kind of activity creates a marketplace that makes it easier for potential terrorists to launder money. If people are openly breaking AML rules then a terrorist can see this and purchase a lot of bitcoin without anyone thinking twice and then potentially being able to use that bitcoin to pay for a potential terrorist attack.

With that form of reasoning one can justify anything - anything at all.

For example: if people are allowed to get into their cars it makes it easier for them to drive to the location of potential terrorists and assist them in some way. Therefore people must not be allowed to get into their cars.

I believe that people are being manipulated through use of the T-word bogeyman into doing and tolerating some reprehensible societal changes.

Time to read "1984" again, lest we forget.

It's a good old fashioned witch hunt, plain and simple. Every criminal empire has it's scapegoats. Bitcoiners and drug users/sellers are the new scapegoats.

But it doesn't really matter. These fuckwit violent oligarchs have no legitimacy left. http://www.npr.org/2011/11/25/142705292/even-lawmakers-ask-does-anyone-like-congress

Even 9/11 couldn't save them from themselves:

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/080616Government3_plkmn7y.gif

Now it's just a waiting game for the inevitable power collapse and revolution.

Are you serious or being flippant?


I really don't think the terrorists (people that are pissed because the US is messing in their internal affairs) are really worried about using Bitcoin. I kind of wish terrorists would start using Bitcoin. Our market cap would increase from $6 billion to $500 billion overnight.

I must admit I'm disappointed with you Charlie.  If you are truly innocent then you must not plead guilty to *ANY* charges that you did not commit.   We cannot permit the Federal Mafia to simply threaten everyone into submission.  This sets a very bad precedent for the future and other Bitcoin users.

Everybody caves if the coercion is strong enough. Everyone. That's one reason a coercive regime is so repugnant.

"Do it to Julia".

"In the first stage of political re-education, Winston Smith admits to and confesses to crimes he did and did not commit, implicating anyone and everyone, including Julia. In the second stage, O'Brien makes Winston understand that he is rotting away; by this time he is little more than skin and bones. Winston counters: "I have not betrayed Julia." O'Brien agrees Winston had not betrayed Julia because he "had not stopped loving her; his feelings toward her had remained the same." One night, in his cell, Winston awakens, screaming: "Julia! Julia! Julia, my love! Julia!" O'Brien rushes into the cell and sends him to Room 101, the most feared room in the Ministry of Love, where resides each prisoner's worst fear, which is forced upon him or her. In Room 101 is Acceptance, the final stage of the political re-education of Winston Smith, whose primal fear of rats is invoked when a wire cage holding hungry rats is fitted onto his face. As the rats are about to reach Winston's face, he shouts: "Do it to Julia!" thus betraying her and relinquishing his love for her."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four#Confession_and_betrayal

We don't have this type of torture in our modern society, but we do have Rape Dungeons that we euphemistically name "prisons", where an estimated 20% of male prisoners will face sexual assault - one of the worst fears of any man.

Charlie had posted, either on this thread somewhere above or on another similar thread that the amount of bitcoin sold on SR by bitinstant was ~$1 million worth. While it is alleged that Ross was running a drug empire that sold >$1 billion worth of drugs. Does anyone see the disconnect here?

I know the amounts are different because the $1 billion figure is based on higher exchange rates then what most of the transactions were likely carried out at, but the billion dollar figure is still there.

If they prosecute anyone whose identity they can figure out who does any significant amount of business on illegal drug sites then they will essentially spread FUD among people who do business on these sites and people will likely not want to buy/sell over TOR (either that or will be more careful about keeping their identity secret).

I agree with this concept. He was facing too much jail time to risk a potential guilty verdict. Hopefully he will be able to get "off" with not having to serve any jailtime with his guilty plea.

There's no such thing as trials in the US anymore, almost 97+%  (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/us/stronger-hand-for-judges-after-rulings-on-plea-deals.html)of all prisoners in the states did plea bargaining to avoid a huge sentence thus never had a trial. Meanwhile in Germany they've abolished plea bargaining and actually have due process though the state keeps trying to bring it back.

I believe in people being able to protect themselves from terrorists, including the Western terrorists who are currently killing people in Middle Eastern countries.

I don't believe in violating people's rights to try to prevent terrorism.


And if people stop killing brown people terrorists will have a lot less to be mad about.  If monetary freedom increases, people can protect themselves from being forced to fund imperialist wars, and the ability to wage those wars will decrease, as will the retaliations.

Don't forget child pornographists.  Won't somebody think of the children!

Why break with precedent?

BTW, you are perfectly free to sacrifice your freedom, family, etc., to fight the Federal mafia in whatever way you choose.

It sometimes does make sense to attempt to reach a plea bargain, especially for "street" crimes, when you are actually guilty, there is well more then enough evidence to convict you and little/no evidence that would show your innocence. What has happened in the US is that prosecutors use very high potential sentences that a defendant would likely face as a bargaining chip.

It sometimes does make sense to attempt to reach a plea bargain, especially for "street" crimes, when you are actually guilty, there is well more then enough evidence to convict you and little/no evidence that would show your innocence. What has happened in the US is that prosecutors use very high potential sentences that a defendant would likely face as a bargaining chip.
[/quote]

The justice system is not so much about justice these days.  Instead it's more about being on the right side of the law and using statistics as a means to sway judgments.  If prosecutors how so much control over the system then how can this be considered justice?   It has become a business for the police, cities, court systems and Governments.  The money as a get out of jail free card these days and is used to help fueling this backwards system we've got. 

Let's say the shremster, in his view, thought he hadn't committed a crime and wanted to relocate to a different country to avoid prosecution.  Besides Somalia, what are his viable options here?

The prospect of running and looking over your shoulder for the rest of your life is probably no better than jail time.

Eric Voorhees seems to think Panama is a good choice. I don't think they extradite for financial crimes.

Charlie seems like a nice guy...but you must put into perspective the amount of substances pushed on that marketplace and the mandatory minimum sentences associated are equivalent to 1000s of years jail time!!  ::)  ~ the war on drugs ? hmmm

The justice system is not so much about justice these days.  Instead it's more about being on the right side of the law and using statistics as a means to sway judgments.  If prosecutors how so much control over the system then how can this be considered justice?   It has become a business for the police, cities, court systems and Governments.  The money as a get out of jail free card these days and is used to help fueling this backwards system we've got. 


[/quote]

I support everybody's right to contract with a competing service provider for justice services.

With enough political pressure any country would likely eventually extradite someone who is wanted by a superpower like the uS.

You would also have the risk that whomever is in power of the country you are living in would change and the new person/party in power would have different views regarding extradition.

I guess. I don't really know though because I try to not steal from people so I haven't studied up on extradition.

Unfortunately the entirety of the US justice system is set up in order to force you to plead guilty.  They make the stakes so high for losing a non-guilty plea that you almost always come out better pleading guilty.  It's total bullshit and it needs to stop.  Check out this doc for more info
 (http://www.netflix.com/WiMovie/70267832?sod=search-autocomplete)

https://i.imgur.com/QGhqe3c.jpg (http://www.netflix.com/WiMovie/70267832?sod=search-autocomplete)

Of course it needs to stop. The US govt. needs to stop a lot of things that's just one of them. First I think the US govt should stop imposing its perverted sense of morality on every nation in the world and stop military murder in places like Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Bosnia, Cambodia, Pakistan, Honduras, Grenada, Libya, Korea, Sinai, Iran, El Salvador, Grenada, Haiti and Panama. The military has people in 130 countries world wide and we wonder why terrorists want to attack us. Everybody wants revenge against the schoolyard bully. I'm glad they jail us all and plead us into submission. I would feel much worse if US citizens were treated differently than the rest of the world.

I'm sure these prosecutors are really proud of their bust—pressuring yet another harmless kid into a plea deal.
And while they're doing that, countless professional launderers go to work, day in and day out. The only difference is that they have the financial backing and legal counsel from those who specialize in these things.

Most of what the pros do is technically "legal" so there's nothing to prosecute. And when it's not 100% legal, they know how to structure their arrangements to fall within certain grey areas of the law, making a successful prosecution of their practices, a legal nightmare.
Instead of facing any of these fundamental issues, or having the balls to investigate real cases, the prosecutors, as typical, go for the low hanging fruit. Regardless of the fact that what Shrem did, is for all practical purposes, harmless.

But bitcoin isn't money. How can he plead guilty to running a money exchange, when the IRS has ruled it isn't money. He was only buying and selling a virtual property. Do we need to start arresting people who buy and sell high ticket items like wine or cars?

One of the perks of being a nation-state, is that you make the rules. You can interpret the rules as you wish, when you wish. Essentially you can have your cake and eat it too.  The only meaningful way to understand "justice" in our society is to analyze it from a hierarchal perspective.

"Justice" is top-down, always. "Social justice" that radical bottom up form, is marginalized and mocked for a reason.

You're confused. The IRS said it's a property, but their opinion doesn't matter when it comes to regulatory issues. The various departments of the government are under no obligation to treat bitcoin the same.
It's stupid, but that's reality.

Bitcoin is only not "money" for tax purposes. Different laws have different definitions for a number of things.

There are a number of things besides bitcoin that can be used for money laundering. Real estate, gold, diamonds are three examples of things that I can think of off the top of my head that can be used to launder money that are even further from money then bitcoin is

They were exchanging dollars for Bitcoin. Dollars are considered money.

Charlie Sheen always gets himself in trouble somehow.

I think he will get "off" with no jail time. If this is the case then him pleading guilty will have essentially no impact on his life. He already has a job lined up (if he isn't already working for them) - I believe it is some bitcoin related project, I know that he said that he is working/going to be working for a MSB.

Ultimately it's still more right wing than 'Murica because you can bribe your way out of the most horrendous crimes unless you're a foreigner and they want to make an example out of you but even then it's just a question of $$.