Back on topic:
Then we discussed pleading guilty to a misdemeanor - I said no.
You must have balls of steal. Regardless of guilt or innocence, I think the vast majority of people would have plead guilty to a misdemeanor (especially if the deal involved no jail time) if they were facing the charges you were facing.
I can't claim to have tungsten testicles but the deal involved them keeping
all my Bitcoins and a lot of other conditions so that made it easier to say no.
Sometimes it is a good idea to take a small loss in order to avoid the prospect of many years behind bars. I am not saying this is a good feature of our country's judicial system (I don't think it is), however it is an unfortunate fact of life.
Agreed. Live to fight another day...
They offered to drop all charges for a forfeiture of, if I remember correctly, $160,000.
I countered, they countered, we countered, etc. and finally settled on a payment of $80,000 half in cash and half in Bitcoin.
In other words, they were extorting you for $160,000 but let you go for $80,000?
If it looks like extortion and it smell like extortion and it sounds like...
I really don't see how it could possibly be legal for them to be negotiating with you to drop the charges in exchange for you to drop the claim against your property which would allow them to keep a portion of your property.
It is legal because I agreed to it. Conceptually, legally, at least in theory, I could have always chosen to take the criminal and all the civil cases to trial, right?
If the DA AUSA (Assistant United States Attorney - remember this is all Federal) believes you are guilty, and believes they can prove it then they should take you to trial; if they do not then they should drop the charges.
The AUSA and my attorney both agreed that the criminal case was a "coin toss" if sent to a jury. We had a few pre-trial motions to try and assume they all failed the only thing left would have been: Was what I was doing, trading Bitcoins on localbitcoins.com a business or not? They claimed it was, we claimed it was not. Since those wet noodles over at FinCEN did not define what constitutes a business as far a volume of transactions and/or volumes of trades and left it specifically ambiguous as "a matter of fact and circumstance" it would have been up to a jury to decide who was/is right.
BTW by not taking my case to trial this question
has still not been decided.
I don't see what how much of your property the government gets to keep has to do with your guilt or innocence. If the conversation really was something along the lines of that the government would drop the charges on the condition that you would not oppose the seizure of $80,000, then I cannot see how that can be anything other then extortion.
Extortion certainly is one way to look at it. But guilt or innocence of the charge, operating a money transmittal business without a licence, was not decided in my case. In essence we agreed to disagree on the definition of what constitutes a business.
I believe that discussions regarding if charges should/would be dropped should be something along the lines of that there is strong evidence the defendant is innocent, and/or there is little enough evidence that a defendant is guilty so that a guilty verdict is highly unlikely and the above is not based on some technicality (e.g. incrementing evidence is thrown out, evidence is not allowed because of an inadvertent mistake in collecting such evidence, etc.).
Since I never disputed the fact, and still do not dispute the fact, that I did trade Bitcoins using the localbitcoins.com platform this case really never was about the evidence. It was about the definition of what constitute a business.
edit: I also believe that discussions regarding pleading to a lower charge should involve something along the lines of the fact that you are honest enough about your crimes to admit to them so you get a lesser punishment as a result and/or the government has sufficient evidence to convict you of your charges, however it would be very expensive to bring your case to trial, so in exchange for avoiding a trial you get a lesser punishment and/or there is sufficient evidence to convict you, however bringing your case to trial would cause one (or more) witnesses to have to go through significant trauma/pain in testifying against you and in exchange for allowing them to avoid this you get a lesser punishment.
/edit
The entire process of the plea bargain is always sold as a time and money saver. However, at its core, the process destroys the entire system and here is why: If the cops and procecutors knew that every single person they arrested would be given an (expensive) fair trail before an (expensive) jury using qualified (expensive) attorneys on both sides then they would never in a million years be able to arrest, charge and jail as many people as they think they need to. In other words they would be a lot more picky about who and what they did with their limited resources. The plea bargain system allows them to churn more people through the system.
I am curious to see/know what evidence they has presented to be used against you, especially forum posts.
(Hopefully you can get a chuckle out of this) Did you at least get
tickets to the police ball?
Yes, that was another funny, sad, infuriating, cop doing the wrong thing but thinking he actually is doing the guy a big favor video. Well at least he did not shoot him.