Don't walk on the edge of the law! Shrem is getting fucked - here's why...

[RawDog]

Law in the US is a tricky thing.  Bobby Lee told of the peculiar nature of Chinese law and how it dynamically adjusts for the present moment.  US law does this too - albeit in a different mode.  

Because comprehensive laws relating to bitcoin are about 5 to 10 years away (at least), prosecuting attorneys deploy a special trick.  This 'trick' is going to royally fuck Shrem who is a bad guy - but just a little tiny bit of a bad guy.
http://www.coindesk.com/charlie-shrem-indicted-federal-charges-money-laundering/

The 'trick' - Make an example out of wrongdoers

To strongly discourage others from pushing the vague limits of legal bitcoin operations, the cops take the first most public wrongdoer and really deliver a strong blow.  This makes all actors considering pushing the edge quite a bit more cautious and reluctant to try schenanighans.  The prosecution will get Shrem on Money Laundering and really make a giant example of him.  They have to do this because presently cryptocurrency law is so vague.  The more vague the law, the bigger the message the state must send to others not to try anything.  

The Fed is going to hang Shrem up big time as a warning to others.  This will keep control for another five years until we can get good laws on the books.  Prosecutions of wrongdoers will go back to a more normal reasonable state then.  But for now, anyone just screwing up a little is going to get hit hard.  

Shrem DOUBLED his problems for himself.  By talking about smoking pot and casually telling Faiella to skirt the system, he put himself into a VERY bad place.  A 'normal' money launderer would get 6 months suspended sentence.  I think Shrem gets 5 years in the Fed prison.  No matter how clever his lawyer is, they won't let him off easy.  This is about controlling the actions of the community - not about Shrem.  Shrem is going to have to pay for this message to be delivered.  Poor bastard.  

But that is how the legal system works.  Until the laws catch up, the only way the Fed will discourage others from illegal behavior is strong prosecutions against very visible and public personalities like Chuck.  

It's a cruel world.  Sorry Charlie.

[C64_4EVA]

yes they are making an example of him. he moved large amounts of money and had connections to silk road so it isn't surprising

[zolace]

so what if he was moving money without him  knowing what they were doing, banks had done this many times for the mafia, have the gone to jail?

[Beliathon]

@OP

If you think businessmen in capitalism can be reduced to "good guy" and "bad guy", you have the mind of a simple child and probably shouldn't be allowed to use the internet.

Let alone cryptocurrency.

OP's signature reads, "Bitcoin will die soon", ergo, OP is a troll and should be ignored.

[whtchocla7e]

Do I feel bad for the guy?

[JPage]

Law in the US is a tricky thing.  Bobby Lee told of the peculiar nature of Chinese law and how it dynamically adjusts for the present moment.  US law does this too - albeit in a different mode.  

Because comprehensive laws relating to bitcoin are about 5 to 10 years away (at least), prosecuting attorneys deploy a special trick.  This 'trick' is going to royally fuck Shrem who is a bad guy - but just a little tiny bit of a bad guy.
http://www.coindesk.com/charlie-shrem-indicted-federal-charges-money-laundering/

The 'trick' - Make an example out of wrongdoers

To strongly discourage others from pushing the vague limits of legal bitcoin operations, the cops take the first most public wrongdoer and really deliver a strong blow.  This makes all actors considering pushing the edge quite a bit more cautious and reluctant to try schenanighans.  The prosecution will get Shrem on Money Laundering and really make a giant example of him.  They have to do this because presently cryptocurrency law is so vague.  The more vague the law, the bigger the message the state must send to others not to try anything.  

The Fed is going to hang Shrem up big time as a warning to others.  This will keep control for another five years until we can get good laws on the books.  Prosecutions of wrongdoers will go back to a more normal reasonable state then.  But for now, anyone just screwing up a little is going to get hit hard.  

Shrem DOUBLED his problems for himself.  By talking about smoking pot and casually telling Faiella to skirt the system, he put himself into a VERY bad place.  A 'normal' money launderer would get 6 months suspended sentence.  I think Shrem gets 5 years in the Fed prison.  No matter how clever his lawyer is, they won't let him off easy.  This is about controlling the actions of the community - not about Shrem.  Shrem is going to have to pay for this message to be delivered.  Poor bastard.  

But that is how the legal system works.  Until the laws catch up, the only way the Fed will discourage others from illegal behavior is strong prosecutions against very visible and public personalities like Chuck.  

It's a cruel world.  Sorry Charlie.

I don't agree with this.  I don't think the cops abuse the law to teach others a lesson.  It seems like they will prosecute those wrongdoers for their crimes - not for some other purpose such as showing others how tough they intend to be.  Otherwise, it would not be fair to those who get caught up in the initial stage of things.  

Money laundering is money laundering.  Charlie should get the same thing other got who did similar bad deeds.  

For example billionaire Berlusconi (my neighbor) got one year of community service for money laundering.  Shrem should get a little less because he wasn't hiding billions like Silvio.  /2014/04/15/world/europe/italy-berlusconi-community-service/index.html?hpt=hp_t3]http://editi[Suspicious link removed]/2014/04/15/world/europe/italy-berlusconi-community-service/index.html?hpt=hp_t3  

[BittBurger]

Shrem was very clear on Lets Talk Bitcoin podcast that those in power are using him as a figurehead for punishment.

And that reputations and careers are motivating a lot of what they are doing. 

This happens.  "Getting a conviction" on the first big Bitcoin case is a feather in their caps.

At the same time, Shrem is young.  And he speaks like a youngster in a lot of ways.  He seems like a genuine guy, but his youth comes out in his verbage and viewpoint on a lot of things.  And he is unfortunately a lot more reckless in his attitude than he probably should be in a situation like this. (going on LTB and publicly discussing his case I am sure was against the advice of his attorney, and he repeatedly had to say "If anyones listening, for the record" etc ... because he was just throwing shit out there.  That kind of bad judgment is what I mean).  He plainly stated that his accusers are just trying to further their careers, etc.  As a result, I have a strong feeling that maybe in the "talks" they have with him, he could be acting somewhat rebellious in tone.  That isn't going to help him navigate this unscathed. 

In the end, he didn't knowingly do anything wrong.  I don't think.  I just hope he doesn't look back on this episode when he's a little older and think "man i was young and stupid back then".  I hope he is more careful, more submissive, and realizes that the bigger picture is what matters (his involvement in Bitcoins future).  Not "sticking it to the man".  You can play the role of the submissive bitch for awhile if you know its bullshit, it successfully feeds their egos, and it gets you out of a situation.  Doesn't mean you're selling out.  You've just got your eyes on what truly matters in the long run.

-B-

[acoindr]

yes they are making an example of him. he moved large amounts of money and had connections to silk road so it isn't surprising

It's not? Shrem moved no more than a few million dollars and there were legal items which could be bought on Silk Road Marketplace in addition to any illegal ones.

Meanwhile HSBC provides upward of 1 billion to terrorists, drug cartels, and criminals and nothing happens:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-16/hsbc-aided-money-laundering-by-iran-drug-cartels-probe-shows.html

HSBC Holdings Plc (HSBA)’s head of group compliance, David Bagley, told a Senate hearing he will step down amid claims the bank gave terrorists, drug cartels and criminals access to the U.S. financial system by failing to guard against money laundering.

[HSBC] ignored links to terrorist financing ... documents show HSBC decided to cut ties with the bank before reversing itself under pressure from Al Rajhi, which received shipments of $1 billion in cash from HSBC’s U.S. operation from 2006 to 2010, according to the report.

[C64_4EVA]

yes they are making an example of him. he moved large amounts of money and had connections to silk road so it isn't surprising

It's not? Shrem moved no more than a few million dollars and there were legal items which could be bought on Silk Road Marketplace in addition to any illegal ones.

Meanwhile HSBC provides upward of 1 billion to terrorists, drug cartels, and criminals and nothing happens:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-16/hsbc-aided-money-laundering-by-iran-drug-cartels-probe-shows.html

HSBC Holdings Plc (HSBA)’s head of group compliance, David Bagley, told a Senate hearing he will step down amid claims the bank gave terrorists, drug cartels and criminals access to the U.S. financial system by failing to guard against money laundering.

[HSBC] ignored links to terrorist financing ... documents show HSBC decided to cut ties with the bank before reversing itself under pressure from Al Rajhi, which received shipments of $1 billion in cash from HSBC’s U.S. operation from 2006 to 2010, according to the report.

i have no doubt that they gov wouldn't be going after him if they didn't connect him to silk road

[Honeypot]

Drugs are bad, kids.

[RawDog]

Drugs are bad, kids.

Shrem is not being charged with any drug offenses.  Despite having said he likes to smoke with potential employees, the Fed doesn't care about his drug uses.  They don't like his notion of flaunting the law in telling his coconspirator how to traverse the rules.  That's what did him in. 

[ArticMine]

The issue here is that the US Government has lost a lot of credibility when it comes to money laundering, in many people's minds, by letting HSBC of the hook with at most a slap on the wrist. As a result of this a conviction in the Shrem case will be seen as an act of oppression by the US Government rather than a legitimate criminal prosecution, regardless of whether Shrem is guilty or not. A likely result will be the creation of a martyr.

[jonald_fyookball]

yes they are making an example of him. he moved large amounts of money and had connections to silk road so it isn't surprising

It's not? Shrem moved no more than a few million dollars and there were legal items which could be bought on Silk Road Marketplace in addition to any illegal ones.

Meanwhile HSBC provides upward of 1 billion to terrorists, drug cartels, and criminals and nothing happens:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-16/hsbc-aided-money-laundering-by-iran-drug-cartels-probe-shows.html

HSBC Holdings Plc (HSBA)’s head of group compliance, David Bagley, told a Senate hearing he will step down amid claims the bank gave terrorists, drug cartels and criminals access to the U.S. financial system by failing to guard against money laundering.

[HSBC] ignored links to terrorist financing ... documents show HSBC decided to cut ties with the bank before reversing itself under pressure from Al Rajhi, which received shipments of $1 billion in cash from HSBC’s U.S. operation from 2006 to 2010, according to the report.

Yep, that's how it works.  Big banks do whatever they want because (surprise) they control the money in this world.  Time for bitcoin?

[franky1]

Money laundering is money laundering.  Charlie should get the same thing other got who did similar bad deeds.  

i dont condone shrems actions. but i do find the law stupid. a financial crime that is not directly killing people* has a 20 year max sentence. yet i have seen rapists and murderers get out in under 6. so if shrem ends up doing above 6 years. then the law is truly making an example of him, by treating him worse then rapists/murderers.

if the prosecution uses the argument that being financially linked to drugs makes him worse then a murderer, because drugs 'can' kill. then gunshop owners should be prosecuted too, due to the fact they are financially linked to a product that 'can' kill.

*(ignoring the 'possible' later repercussions of what drugs do to people later on as it's passed many hands and cut with nasty stuff)

[jc01480]

In the US, prosecutors use existing 'elements' of existing laws to shape or portray current conduct as unlawful.  I seriously doubt a conviction for money laundering will be obtained without him pleading to it first.  If this goes to trial, it will be a long drawn out education of a jury who will question what the federal position is on crtyptocurrency, something we all know they have no clue about.

[franky1]

In the US, prosecutors use existing 'elements' of existing laws to shape or portray current conduct as unlawful.  I seriously doubt a conviction for money laundering will be obtained without him pleading to it first.  If this goes to trial, it will be a long drawn out education of a jury who will question what the federal position is on crtyptocurrency, something we all know they have no clue about.

best defense
show me physical proof that it was X writing emails to Y. anyone could have had access to X's computer system, or atleast spoofed X's ID