South Korean Court Rules Confiscation of Bitcoins Illegal

[cryptobanker350]

Full article:

http://cryptoanalyzer.com/south-korean-court-rules-confiscation-of-bitcoins-illegal/

South Korean court rules that bitcoins and other cryptocurrencies cannot be confiscated by the govt.

[Karpeles]

"[it is]“not appropriate to confiscate Bitcoins as they cannot assume an objective standard value.”
Furthermore, the indication is that Bitcoin, as a cryptocurrency, has no physical representation, and thus there is essentially nothing to be confiscated, according to the courts."

They are right. But sooner or later it will be misused by criminals, and the whole finantial system is based on virtual stuff that doesn't even exist. Banks can create money out of nothing and lend it.

Maybe they should consider illegal confiscation of bank accounts, since bank accounts are virtual nowadays

[Katashi]

I think this is not fair, since they are not the one who really gives a hard time to earn it. i will be understanding that situation if they just want a piece of it or a percentage to be consider as tax. This why i really don't trust any kind of government, when i comes to money matters the government see that everything profitable must be under their control. bunch of selfish peoples out there.

[Emoclaw]

I think this is not fair, since they are not the one who really gives a hard time to earn it. i will be understanding that situation if they just want a piece of it or a percentage to be consider as tax. This why i really don't trust any kind of government, when i comes to money matters the government see that everything profitable must be under their control. bunch of selfish peoples out there.

Maybe you did not read the title, thread or article correctly (or at all for that matter) but they clearly say that the government CANNOT confiscate Bitcoin by law.
Thus, it's NOT under their control. Though this law wasn't necessary, they wouldn't be able to confiscate Bitcoin either way.

[MARK 777]

with news like this but bitcoin price till more than 4200$  why

[rjbtc2017]

"[it is]“not appropriate to confiscate Bitcoins as they cannot assume an objective standard value.”
Furthermore, the indication is that Bitcoin, as a cryptocurrency, has no physical representation, and thus there is essentially nothing to be confiscated, according to the courts."

They are right. But sooner or later it will be misused by criminals, and the whole finantial system is based on virtual stuff that doesn't even exist. Banks can create money out of nothing and lend it.

Maybe they should consider illegal confiscation of bank accounts, since bank accounts are virtual nowadays

They are correct, as i can see, South Korean Government really sees Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies are a form of investment, this will be another big support for the life of bitcoin, continuing support and emerging support from other countries is likely going to happen.

Lol. Banks holding their fiat money, paper money and coins Therefore we can say that "Virtual stuff" of Banks have their own physical representations.
"can create money out of nothing" this is basically true but their some countries, their money are based on their Gold reserves so i don't think this is correct.

[ninza]

"[it is]“not appropriate to confiscate Bitcoins as they cannot assume an objective standard value.”
Furthermore, the indication is that Bitcoin, as a cryptocurrency, has no physical representation, and thus there is essentially nothing to be confiscated, according to the courts."

They are right. But sooner or later it will be misused by criminals, and the whole finantial system is based on virtual stuff that doesn't even exist. Banks can create money out of nothing and lend it.

Maybe they should consider illegal confiscation of bank accounts, since bank accounts are virtual nowadays

That seems reasonable, very reasonable. Would be nice to see that sort of reasoning elsewhere, very helpful.

[Kakmakr]

This is a very strange ruling, if it was based on this : " the confiscation was deemed illegitimate because: [it is]“not appropriate to confiscate Bitcoins as they cannot assume an objective standard value.”

This kind of statement makes no sense and will be exploited by criminals and scammers in their defense, when they are caught and it goes to trial. I think this might be over ruled in future, when this is tested and reviewed.

The argument that " Bitcoin, as a cryptocurrency, has no physical representation, and thus there is essentially nothing to be confiscated " is outdated and shows a lack of understanding of the technology. < for instance if a paper wallet is found, the paper wallet is a physical representation of the value of the coins > 

[Pursuer]

This is a very strange ruling, if it was based on this : " the confiscation was deemed illegitimate because: [it is]“not appropriate to confiscate Bitcoins as they cannot assume an objective standard value.”

This kind of statement makes no sense and will be exploited by criminals and scammers in their defense, when they are caught and it goes to trial. I think this might be over ruled in future, when this is tested and reviewed.

The argument that " Bitcoin, as a cryptocurrency, has no physical representation, and thus there is essentially nothing to be confiscated " is outdated and shows a lack of understanding of the technology. < for instance if a paper wallet is found, the paper wallet is a physical representation of the value of the coins > 

that is also what I thought reading it!
I think in the end it doesn't matter what this rule says, it will be on a case by case basis and with some additional conditions. for example confiscate for what reason. if it is bitcoins gained through illegal activities, or coins belonging to something like SilkRoad then it is not so out of question to be confiscated.

or for example the court may rule that the person has to pay the same amount in fiat as fine instead of confiscating their coins. and that will be easier for the government because if they confiscate they have to auction it and that takes time and will cost them. but receiving fine in fiat right then and there is much easier

[digaran]

I think this is not fair, since they are not the one who really gives a hard time to earn it. i will be understanding that situation if they just want a piece of it or a percentage to be consider as tax. This why i really don't trust any kind of government, when i comes to money matters the government see that everything profitable must be under their control. bunch of selfish peoples out there.

Maybe you did not read the title, thread or article correctly (or at all for that matter) but they clearly say that the government CANNOT confiscate Bitcoin by law.
Thus, it's NOT under their control. Though this law wasn't necessary, they wouldn't be able to confiscate Bitcoin either way.

What if a government has hash power enough to change the transactions or just mark some Bitcoins and then orders mining farms not to process them? that way even if they don't have access to the coins directly they could make them useless for any body to spend, though for that to happen all the governments need to work together to achieve this.

[subSTRATA]

Maybe they should consider illegal confiscation of bank accounts, since bank accounts are virtual nowadays

first off im not sure how one can 'confiscate' an account, perhaps you meant something more along the lines of freezing someone's assets? this is just a guess, but in that case, i think in legal terms, there is a difference between what bitcoin is classified as, versus the legal tender of a nation as deemed by the government (which is contained in a bank account).

"[it is]“not appropriate to confiscate Bitcoins as they cannot assume an objective standard value.”

in this case, the korean won, the legal tender of the republic of korea, does indeed hold an objective value.

They are right. But sooner or later it will be misused by criminals, and the whole finantial system is based on virtual stuff that doesn't even exist. Banks can create money out of nothing and lend it.

bitcoin has already been used in such a manner by criminals, namely silk road and other marketplaces would be the first thing that comes to mind.

[Wind_FURY]

"[it is]“not appropriate to confiscate Bitcoins as they cannot assume an objective standard value.”
Furthermore, the indication is that Bitcoin, as a cryptocurrency, has no physical representation, and thus there is essentially nothing to be confiscated, according to the courts."

It is a simple case of there are no laws made for Bitcoin yet. Some countries have not even decided if it is a commodity or a currency yet. It depends from judge to judge which should not be.

They are right. But sooner or later it will be misused by criminals, and the whole finantial system is based on virtual stuff that doesn't even exist. Banks can create money out of nothing and lend it.

Maybe they should consider illegal confiscation of bank accounts, since bank accounts are virtual nowadays

This does not make any sense. Please do not tell me you are doing this to reach your 275 character limit.

[yugyug]

South Koreans shows a massive support about bitcoins and it is pointless to confiscate as it has no physical acquisition. Though it may misuse in the long run as many South Koreans are operating online gambling abroad and they are using bitcoins as betting coins.

[faithupgrade]

I rather get away from a country that has a stupid government. Who are them to get your hard earned bitcoins? If you have a thousand BTC, better go to a country who allow Bitcoin.

Full article:

http://cryptoanalyzer.com/south-korean-court-rules-confiscation-of-bitcoins-illegal/

South Korean court rules that bitcoins and other cryptocurrencies cannot be confiscated by the govt.

[talkbitcoin]

what kind of "Rule" is this!
is it possible that the linked website just made some mistakes in translations. of course it wouldn't be the first time they publish something vague and misunderstood like this! maybe this "Rule" has some attachments and "ifs and buts" in it that is not being mentioned in that link.

in any case saying "...since it has not physical form..." is not enough reason! world has turned digital a long time ago, or maybe South Korean didn't get the memo

[rjbtc2017]

This is a very strange ruling, if it was based on this : " the confiscation was deemed illegitimate because: [it is]“not appropriate to confiscate Bitcoins as they cannot assume an objective standard value.”

This kind of statement makes no sense and will be exploited by criminals and scammers in their defense, when they are caught and it goes to trial. I think this might be over ruled in future, when this is tested and reviewed.

The argument that " Bitcoin, as a cryptocurrency, has no physical representation, and thus there is essentially nothing to be confiscated " is outdated and shows a lack of understanding of the technology. < for instance if a paper wallet is found, the paper wallet is a physical representation of the value of the coins > 

You got a point here, but it is still digital per se, paper wallet is just physical representation of the value of coins but it is not equivalent to value in physical, i don't know how should i explain it well, but that's it . I think South Korean Government is correct about this.