Bitcoin Forum
June 21, 2024, 06:02:33 PM *
News: Voting for pizza day contest
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: [2014-01-31] Forbes - Silk Road Vendor Filing Claim For Seized Bitcoins  (Read 2604 times)
TheButterZone
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3010
Merit: 1031


RIP Mommy


View Profile WWW
February 03, 2014, 10:46:34 PM
 #21

"Illegal marketplace"

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/assets/FallaciesPosterHigherRes.jpg

Saying that you don't trust someone because of their behavior is completely valid.
Bitware
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 926
Merit: 1001


weaving spiders come not here


View Profile
February 04, 2014, 12:25:06 PM
 #22


Oh, I agree completely. That said, we have reality to contend with. I stand by my beliefs on how the US government will defend against this claim. I certainly hope to be eating crow and admitting I was wrong, but seriously, knowing the US government, do you really doubt they will act this way?

There is a huge difference between "how it should be" and "how it is."
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079


Gerald Davis


View Profile
February 04, 2014, 05:17:02 PM
 #23

Shouldn't they claim it BEFORE the forfeiture order is made? They have more than 2 months to make the claim. The court made the forfeiture order because no one claimed the bitcoin. Isn't it too late now?

I am not sure.  I am not a laywer (I would image the person in the article obtained counsel).

The govt would not appear to have followed its own procedures:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/983

The DOJ should have provided written notice to all parties more than 30 days before the forfeiture and thus provide an opportunity to fiile a claim.  If they didn't (and I don't think they did) then that might (no I have no interest in reading those pages of statute) give certain rights for a late claim.

On edit:
Quote
(e) Motion To Set Aside Forfeiture.—
(1) Any person entitled to written notice in any nonjudicial civil forfeiture proceeding under a civil forfeiture statute who does not receive such notice may file a motion to set aside a declaration of forfeiture with respect to that person’s interest in the property, which motion shall be granted if—
(A) the Government knew, or reasonably should have known, of the moving party’s interest and failed to take reasonable steps to provide such party with notice; and
(B) the moving party did not know or have reason to know of the seizure within sufficient time to file a timely claim.

So it looks like in some cases, one can file not a claim but an attempt to set aside the forfeiture (and thus allow a claim as it is if the forfeiture never happened).
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!