Is stealing Bitcoins illegal?

[SgtSpike]

Breaking a contract may not be a crime, but you can still certainly be sued for it.

No you cannot. All contracts have to made in the legal tender of the land to be recognised by the court of the land. If you cannot pay your taxes in it, it's not legal tender.

No, all contracts can be made right in the legal tender of the law though.  If I stole 10 Bitcoins from you, you could sue me for $120.

[1714950692]

1714950692

[1714950692]

1714950692

[1714950692]

1714950692

[1714950692]

1714950692

[1714950692]

1714950692

[1714950692]

1714950692

[Gatorhex]

I can enter a contract with someone to exchange 5 televisions for their 3 microwave ovens.

That is barter, and yes, I stand corrected, the USA made barter taxable with the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 which means they would uphold a bitcoin contract as enforcable in the USA!  

Just don't forget that also means the IRS can come after you for not declaring your bitcoin income taxes.  

[CharlieContent]

If I prepay a year of tuition at a local university, what do I have?  Nothing?  Or a right to attend school there?  Is that an asset?  Do I own it?  Is it tangible?  Is it intellectual property?

It's not an asset, you don't own it, it's not tangible and it's not intellectual property.

It isn't property of any kind.

What you have is advanced payment for services rendered. It's non transferrable, and it can't be stolen.

I'm not sure what your point is.

There are plenty of other kinds of intangible property that aren't intellectual property. 

This is true and I should have mentioned this. However Bitcoin isn't legally defined as one of the, Debts, regulated financial instruments, and money are all intangibles, but Bitcoin doesn't fall into any of those categories. It also isn't a an event ticket or water rights.

Again, I'm confused as to your point.

[strideynet]

It's illegal. Scamming and stealing and hacking are all illegal. And if courts are stupid we explain the bitcoin.
They realise it has a large real world value. No law references the virtual currencies. But under the general 4 laws of society.
No stealing
No murder.
No terrorism.
No scamming.

[CharlieContent]

It's illegal. Scamming and stealing and hacking are all illegal. And if courts are stupid we explain the bitcoin.

That's not how it works. You can't just explain something to a court. There has to be a law against it.

They realise it has a large real world value.

Do they? How can you be so sure?

No law references the virtual currencies.

That's right. That is the problem.

But under the general 4 laws of society.
No stealing
No murder.
No terrorism.
No scamming.

There are no general laws for society. That's not how the law works. There are specific laws for specific situations. Legislation is not the ten commandments from the Bible.

[defxor]

There are no general laws for society. That's not how the law works. There are specific laws for specific situations. Legislation is not the ten commandments from the Bible.

Amazingly there's more than one society in the world. Here's how the supreme court in the Netherlands views the issue:

By laying down various criminal provisions, the legislator intended to protect rightholders' control over any goods owned by them. Under article 310 of the Criminal Code it is a criminal offence to deliberately take de facto control of any good belonging to another person with the intention of unlawfully appropriating it. The term 'any good' has an autonomous definition under the criminal law. An intangible object may be considered a good provided it is an object that by its nature can be removed from the de facto control of another person.

The assertion that the objects are not goods because they consist of 'bits and bytes' is untenable. The virtual nature of these objects does not in itself preclude their being considered goods within the meaning of article 310 of the Criminal Code. The appeal court's ruling on this matter is thoroughly reasoned and is in no way incorrect in its interpretation of the law. The Supreme Court bases this conclusion in part on the fact that the appeal court established that 'for the victim, the defendant and his co-accused, the possessions they collect in the game hold genuine value, which can be taken away from them'

http://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie/Hoge-Raad/Supreme-court/Summaries-of-some-important-rulings-of-the-Supreme-Court/Pages/Extractfromthejudgment.aspx

[CharlieContent]

Amazingly there's more than one society in the world. Here's how the supreme court in the Netherlands views the issue:

Amazingly, I mentioned the Netherlands in the OP

[sippsnapp]

Im not a lawyer too but its kind obviously.

In germany this would most probably fall under extortion.

http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/253.html

Strafgesetzbuch
      Besonderer Teil (§§ 80 - 358)     
      20. Abschnitt - Raub und Erpressung (§§ 249 - 256)     
§ 253
Erpressung

(1) Wer einen Menschen rechtswidrig mit Gewalt oder durch Drohung mit einem empfindlichen Übel zu einer Handlung, Duldung oder Unterlassung nötigt und dadurch dem Vermögen des Genötigten oder eines anderen Nachteil zufügt, um sich oder einen Dritten zu Unrecht zu bereichern, wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu fünf Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe bestraft.

(2) Rechtswidrig ist die Tat, wenn die Anwendung der Gewalt oder die Androhung des Übels zu dem angestrebten Zweck als verwerflich anzusehen ist.

(3) Der Versuch ist strafbar.

(4) In besonders schweren Fällen ist die Strafe Freiheitsstrafe nicht unter einem Jahr. Ein besonders schwerer Fall liegt in der Regel vor, wenn der Täter gewerbsmäßig oder als Mitglied einer Bande handelt, die sich zur fortgesetzten Begehung einer Erpressung verbunden hat.

Translatd with google translator:

criminal code
    Special Section (§ § 80 - 358)
    20th Section - robbery and extortion (§ § 249 - 256)
§ 253
extortion

(1) Who a person unlawfully by force or threat of appreciable harm to an action, toleration or omission compels and thus the ability of the forced or other disadvantage inflicted to himself or a third enrich unjustly will be punished with imprisonment up convicted to five years or a fine.

(2) the act is unlawful if the use of force or the threat of the evil to the intended purpose is to be regarded as reprehensible.

(3) The attempt is punishable.

(4) In especially serious cases the punishment is not less than one year. A particularly serious case is usually when the perpetrator acts professionally or as a member of a gang which has combined for the continued commission of extortion.

[Nolo]

Well I'll answer the question that obviously you don't have to be an attorney to answer  

A person commits theft of property if, with intent to deprive the owner of property, the person knowingly obtains or exercises control over the property without the owner's effective consent.

So obviously, if you jack someone's wallet.dat, and they didn't tell you you could have it, you just committed the crime of theft.  

You're also going to be liable in tort for conversion.

[CharlieContent]

Well I'll answer the question that obviously you don't have to be an attorney to answer  

A person commits theft of property if, with intent to deprive the owner of property, the person knowingly obtains or exercises control over the property without the owner's effective consent.

So obviously, if you jack someone's wallet.dat, and they didn't tell you you could have it, you just committed the crime of theft.  

You're also going to be liable in tort for conversion.

Do you think that Bitcoins fall under the legal definition of property? If so, why?

Also, what do you think about situations where someone transfers Bitcoins under false pretences?

I think the most compelling argument that stealing Bitcoins isn't illegal is the fact that Pirate's identity is known, yet he hasn't been prosecuted.

[Nolo]

Well I'll answer the question that obviously you don't have to be an attorney to answer  

A person commits theft of property if, with intent to deprive the owner of property, the person knowingly obtains or exercises control over the property without the owner's effective consent.

So obviously, if you jack someone's wallet.dat, and they didn't tell you you could have it, you just committed the crime of theft.  

You're also going to be liable in tort for conversion.

Do you think that Bitcoins fall under the legal definition of property? If so, why?

Also, what do you think about situations where someone transfers Bitcoins under false pretences?

I think the most compelling argument that stealing Bitcoins isn't illegal is the fact that Pirate's identity is known, yet he hasn't been prosecuted.

The issue with pirate's prosecution isn't that what he did wasn't illegal, it is that no prosecutor that has jurisdiction to prosecute him has chosen to do so as of yet.  Also, for the whole pirate issue, there is the question of "intent".  Was it pirate's intent to steal the bitcoins?  Or was he just incredibly negligent and therefore should face civil liability as opposed to criminal punishment?  I don't know enough about that whole situation to go into alot of details on it. 

Property is simply any physical or intangible entity owned by a person.  A bitcoin would be an intangible entity, just as a checking account would be an intangible entity. 

The common law definition of larceny relied on tangible personal property (something you could actually touch and carry away), but that distinction is pretty much gone today. 

Getting someone to transfer you bitcoins under false pretenses would subject the tortfeasor to civil damages for the misrepresentation.  Whether any criminal charges could be brought would depend on the facts of the actual case, but if I was a prosecutor, the first thing I would think of is wire fraud.  This involves providing information and transmitting documents through the mail or through electronic media in conjunction with an allegedly fraudulent plan or scheme.  Many people are charged with this crime by the federal government, and do serious prison time. 

[reyals]

Of course stealing bitcoins is illegal.

Which jurisdiction are you referring to?  Can you reference a law, statute or decision that can back up this assertion?

You seem very sure, but I am quite sure that it is a far more complicated matter than your answer suggests.

In China, Qiu Chengwei was sentenced to life in prison after stabbing and killing fellow The Legend of Mir 3 gamer Zhu Caoyuan. In the game Qiu had lent Zhu a powerful sword (a "dragon sabre"), which Zhu then went on to sell on eBay for 7,200 Yuan (about £473 or US$870). With no Chinese laws covering the online dispute, there was nothing the police could do.

The sword is a virtual item, created out of nothingness, which trades for a significant sum on the open market. Even though the item was worth a lot of money, the theft and subsequent sale was not an illegal act.  Is a Bitcoin really substantially different in the eyes of the law?

Failure to return an item is a civil matter in most cases because it's not the cops job to figure out the 'terms' of your agreement that led to the item not being returned.  Of course I know nothing of chinese law.

Anyway... I don't think you can really make a case for 'stealing' bitcoins since nothing has really been taken.  Now all sorts of laws aginst unauthorized access may come into play since your wallet.dat is like a cryptologic signature and using that to execute unauthorized transactions would almost certinly run afoul of such laws.

For example; loging into someones account and taking their sword in WoW probably won't get you arrested for taking the sword.  But you can be damn sure loging into their account is aginst the law.  Though I'm not sure how the ruling would come down on P2P network vs Servers...  that could be intresting to see.  But if the courts have ruled you can't even steal source code then I don't think they'd look fondly on the same argument for bitcoins.

Of course none of the above would prevent you from suing the ever living shit out of the person who took your bitcoins.

[Nolo]

Failure to return an item is a civil matter in most cases because it's not the cops job to figure out the 'terms' of your agreement that led to the item not being returned.  Of course I know nothing of chinese law.

Anyway... I don't think you can really make a case for 'stealing' bitcoins since nothing has really been taken.  Now all sorts of laws aginst unauthorized access may come into play since your wallet.dat is like a cryptologic signature and using that to execute unauthorized transactions would almost certinly run afoul of such laws.

I have seen this stated several times in this thread. I can't stress enough how wrong it is.  An intangible piece of property is still property and still subject to theft.  

The extension of 18 U.S.C. § 641 to intangible property interests is consistent with both the plain language of the statute and the judicial construction of that language. The term "thing of value" is certainly broad enough to encompass both tangible and intangible properties and, in fact, has been construed to cover intangibles. See United States v. Girard, 601 F.2d at 71

- US Attorneys Criminal Resource Manual

§ 641 is one of the many federal theft statutes.

[reyals]

Failure to return an item is a civil matter in most cases because it's not the cops job to figure out the 'terms' of your agreement that led to the item not being returned.  Of course I know nothing of chinese law.

Anyway... I don't think you can really make a case for 'stealing' bitcoins since nothing has really been taken.  Now all sorts of laws aginst unauthorized access may come into play since your wallet.dat is like a cryptologic signature and using that to execute unauthorized transactions would almost certinly run afoul of such laws.

I have seen this stated several times in this thread. I can't stress enough how wrong it is.  An intangible piece of property is still property and still subject to theft. 

The extension of 18 U.S.C. § 641 to intangible property interests is consistent with both the plain language of the statute and the judicial construction of that language. The term "thing of value" is certainly broad enough to encompass both tangible and intangible properties and, in fact, has been construed to cover intangibles. See United States v. Girard, 601 F.2d at 71

- US Attorneys Criminal Resource Manual

§ 641 is the federal theft statute.

Ok first off 641 is only for the governments money... so if you steal the fed's bitcoins 641 may come into play.

Theft is normally under the state's jursidiction

So here's Texas' take

(6) "Intangible personal property" means a claim, interest (other than an interest in tangible property), right, or other thing that has value but cannot be seen, felt, weighed, measured, or otherwise perceived by the senses, although its existence may be evidenced by a document. It includes a stock, bond, note or account receivable, franchise, license or permit, demand or time deposit, certificate of deposit, share account, share certificate account, share deposit account, insurance policy, annuity, pension, cause of action, contract, and goodwill.

Which one do you feel bitcoin falls under?

[CharlieContent]

  Property is simply any physical or intangible entity owned by a person.  A bitcoin would be an intangible entity, just as a checking account would be an intangible entity. 

From what I've read, it's not so simple. At least not in the US or the UK. It seems like intangible property is quite strictly defined, and Bitcoin doesn't really fall under any of the definitions.

I don't understand this checking account comparison. I'm not sure how one would steal a checking account. Obviously they could steal the contents, that would be pretty simple, but to steal the actual account is a curious thought. It seems fairly impossible. It seems to me that you don't actually own a checking account. You own the money inside. The account is merely a way of keeping track of that money. Can you elucidate a bit on this idea so that I understand what you mean?

[strideynet]

Who wants to contact Obama and request they create laws for the virtual enviiroments. Then when the world uses much virtual currencies it's already there. And obamas a nice guy. It would secure the Internet a bit more if virtual items with a irl value could be brought to court for stealing. The world will eventually use online currencies and if they don't make the law now, things could get messy.

[defxor]

Amazingly, I mentioned the Netherlands in the OP

Yes, without finding the most relevant supreme court decision. To answer the question you pose in the OP: Yes, stealing Bitcoins is illegal, and would be prosecuted everywhere there's a functioning legal system.

You have provided no support whatsoever for any other interpretation of relevant law that has been cited in this thread. I'll re-quote the Supreme court in the Netherlands below:

The assertion that the objects are not goods because they consist of 'bits and bytes' is untenable. The virtual nature of these objects does not in itself preclude their being considered goods

Your personal views to the contrary are not relevant.

[becoin]

Is stealing Bitcoins illegal?

Performing illegal action against illegal (virtual) object is perfectly legal...After all, this what the so called war on terror is about. We learn from our governments, right?

[Nolo]

Failure to return an item is a civil matter in most cases because it's not the cops job to figure out the 'terms' of your agreement that led to the item not being returned.  Of course I know nothing of chinese law.

Anyway... I don't think you can really make a case for 'stealing' bitcoins since nothing has really been taken.  Now all sorts of laws aginst unauthorized access may come into play since your wallet.dat is like a cryptologic signature and using that to execute unauthorized transactions would almost certinly run afoul of such laws.

I have seen this stated several times in this thread. I can't stress enough how wrong it is.  An intangible piece of property is still property and still subject to theft. 

The extension of 18 U.S.C. § 641 to intangible property interests is consistent with both the plain language of the statute and the judicial construction of that language. The term "thing of value" is certainly broad enough to encompass both tangible and intangible properties and, in fact, has been construed to cover intangibles. See United States v. Girard, 601 F.2d at 71

- US Attorneys Criminal Resource Manual

§ 641 is the federal theft statute.

Ok first off 641 is only for the governments money... so if you steal the fed's bitcoins 641 may come into play.

Theft is normally under the state's jursidiction

So here's Texas' take

(6) "Intangible personal property" means a claim, interest (other than an interest in tangible property), right, or other thing that has value but cannot be seen, felt, weighed, measured, or otherwise perceived by the senses, although its existence may be evidenced by a document. It includes a stock, bond, note or account receivable, franchise, license or permit, demand or time deposit, certificate of deposit, share account, share certificate account, share deposit account, insurance policy, annuity, pension, cause of action, contract, and goodwill.

Which one do you feel bitcoin falls under?

You're right about the state action.  The overwhelming majority of criminal charges are brought by the state.  The feds don't have a straight up "theft" statute, as typically there has to be something more complicated than just stealing something before the feds even have jurisdiction, such as stealing something in interstate commerce.  So §641 is one of the closest statutes you can get to, to see what the federal courts feel about the issue. 

The part you didn't bold is where I feel bitcoin falls in the Texas statute. 

"Intangible personal property" means a claim, interest (other than an interest in tangible property), right, or other thing that has value but cannot be seen, felt, weighed, measured, or otherwise perceived by the senses, although its existence may be evidenced by a document.

The part you bolded was just a bunch of examples the TX legislature gave.  It isn't meant to be an exclusive list. 

[dirtycat]

its just magic nerd money.. sure stealing it is wrong and I am sure thieves feel horrible about taking it and have many sleepless nights but it is not illegal.. nobody has ever went to prison over it and nobody ever will.