Could there be a law on stolen bitcoins?

[Hazir]

AgentofCoin, I understand what you are saying there. Bitcoin is currently grey area of economy and creating laws imposes control over bitcoin.
And I agree that is not something we would necessarily want. But we need to have some kind of customer protection - not control.
As you said - now, you can go to court and every judge could have different opinion. I want these opinions to be standardized - theft is a theft.

[xhomerx10]

Well, stealing is a crime itself, so yes. I don't see why it would be allowed. It's stealing lol.

Stealing requires ownership, Bitcoin network grants no legal ownership rights.

An item doesn't have to be regulated in order to report it stolen!  Where in the world do you guys come up with this shit?!

Ex-U.S. agent gets over six years for bitcoin theft in Silk Road probe

He didn't get in trouble for "stealing bitcoins", that is a BS headline for lay people.
He broke many crimes unrelated to bitcoin and violated certain regulations required as a federal agent.

Carl Force, a former U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agent, admitted to charges of extortion, money laundering and obstruction of justice.

He was not charged with "theft of property" aka stolen bitcoins, because there is no such law.

Almost all things are regulated under law, whether you are aware of it or not.
Currently, bitcoin is not regulated and as such, there are no laws that determine a users rights.

He certainly did get charged and plead guilty for stealing Bitcoin.  Only it wasn't simply stealing, it was extortion!

 Carl Mark Force plead guilty on three counts.  The third count was Extortion under color of official right (which makes it worse), in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1951 which states:

(a)   Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(b)  As used in this section—
(1)   The term “robbery” means the unlawful taking or obtaining of personal property from the person or in the presence of another, against his will, by means of actual or threatened force, or violence, or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his person or property, or property in his custody or possession, or the person or property of a relative or member of his family or of anyone in his company at the time of the taking or obtaining.

(2)   The term “extortion” means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.

(3)   The term “commerce” means commerce within the District of Columbia, or any Territory or Possession of the United States; all commerce between any point in a State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia and any point outside thereof; all commerce between points within the same State through any place outside such State; and all other commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction.


 Bitcoin is property.  Bitcoin is money.  Taking it from the owner without consent is theft.  Taking it from the owner with threats of harm is extortion.  The laws required to protect your property are already on the books - there needn't be a specific Bitcoin law. 


 In Canada, laws pertaining to theft are very broad:

 Section 322(1) of the Criminal Code

322. (1) Every one commits theft who fraudulently and without colour of right takes, or fraudulently and without colour of right converts to his/her use or to the use of another person, anything, whether animate or inanimate, with intent
(a) to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of it, or a person who has a special property or interest in it, of the thing or of his property or interest in it;(b) to pledge it or deposit it as security;(c) to part with it under a condition with respect to its return that the person who parts with it may be unable to perform; or(d) to deal with it in such a manner that it cannot be restored in the condition in which it was at the time it was taken or converted.[6]

 Bitcoin is covered.

[AgentofCoin]

AgentofCoin, I understand what you are saying there. Bitcoin is currently grey area of economy and creating laws imposes control over bitcoin.
And I agree that is not something we would necessarily want. But we need to have some kind of customer protection - not control.
As you said - now, you can go to court and every judge could have different opinion. I want these opinions to be standardized - theft is a theft.

Understandable, but just for example as to why even consumer protection is dangerous,
take a look at the New York BitLicense. It was originally supposed to help bitcoin users from
being scammed and grant them certain protections from and with exchanges and etc.

All that it really did was pushed bitcoin businesses out of New York, made the rules and regulations
more strict, and made the licenses almost impossible to get, thus creating a "control" over bitcoin in NY.
At the end of the day, a clarification of regulation of bitcoin in order to "protect the bitcoin users" turned
into a mechanism to control, restrict, and prevent bitcoins growth in that area. With one strike, NY became
a no-go zone for bitcoin, even p2p Localbitcoin sales are "illegal" under the BitLicense.

So even though consumer protection are normally great and needed for most products, Bitcoin/bitcoin may
be the only system that currently exists where such regulation would cause the opposite of what most users
would probably desire.

[I Am Hero]

theft is theft and it is punishable by law. and since you pay for bitcoin with your fiat money there must be some law about theft of bitcoin unless you are living in a lawless country.

[AgentofCoin]

Well, stealing is a crime itself, so yes. I don't see why it would be allowed. It's stealing lol.

Stealing requires ownership, Bitcoin network grants no legal ownership rights.

An item doesn't have to be regulated in order to report it stolen!  Where in the world do you guys come up with this shit?!

Ex-U.S. agent gets over six years for bitcoin theft in Silk Road probe

He didn't get in trouble for "stealing bitcoins", that is a BS headline for lay people.
He broke many crimes unrelated to bitcoin and violated certain regulations required as a federal agent.

Carl Force, a former U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agent, admitted to charges of extortion, money laundering and obstruction of justice.

He was not charged with "theft of property" aka stolen bitcoins, because there is no such law.

Almost all things are regulated under law, whether you are aware of it or not.
Currently, bitcoin is not regulated and as such, there are no laws that determine a users rights.

He certainly did get charged and plead guilty for stealing Bitcoin.  Only it wasn't simply stealing, it was extortion!

 Carl Mark Force plead guilty on three counts.  The third count was Extortion under color of official right (which makes it worse), in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1951 which states:

(a)   Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(b)  As used in this section—
(1)   The term “robbery” means the unlawful taking or obtaining of personal property from the person or in the presence of another, against his will, by means of actual or threatened force, or violence, or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his person or property, or property in his custody or possession, or the person or property of a relative or member of his family or of anyone in his company at the time of the taking or obtaining.

(2)   The term “extortion” means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.

(3)   The term “commerce” means commerce within the District of Columbia, or any Territory or Possession of the United States; all commerce between any point in a State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia and any point outside thereof; all commerce between points within the same State through any place outside such State; and all other commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction.


 Bitcoin is property.  Bitcoin is money.  Taking it from the owner without consent is theft.  Taking it from the owner with threats of harm is extortion.  The laws required to protect your property are already on the books - there needn't be a specific Bitcoin law.  
....

No, that is not an official governmental determination.
He willingly pled guilty to those charges without contest, meaning the government didn't
have to prove whether a legal property was extorted. Obviously, the federal agent "extorted" the victim,
but that does not prove that the gain was a legal property, only that the victim was coerced with
threats to provide some form of compensation. "Extortion" is more about the act of threatening to get a gain.
Not whether that gain is a certain property type or not, that is irrelevant to the threat for gain.

There is no official judgment, ruling or law for any high court which determines bitcoin to be a
legal property. In fact, different agencies and different US Courts have determined that bitcoin is many
different things, sometimes out right contradicting other judgments and opinions.

Citing a single case where the defendant pled guilty without contest does not create official
governmental legislative determination of what bitcoin is and is not. It only applies in this case.

US money can not be owned and is not a property.
So if bitcoin is money and property, that would contradict US law.

If you think bitcoin is a property, what aspect is the part that you own?
If the bitcoins never leave the blockchain system, how do you own them?
If another user generates your private key by chance, does he own those coins too?
If the Bitcoin network disappeared tomorrow, where did your property go?

If your answer is so simple, why isn't there a clear understanding between agencies?

The Bitcoin system does not grant users any rights and is use at your own risk.
If the government wants to declare it a legal property type, they don't understand what Bitcoin and
the bitcoin blockchain is on a technical level. Ownership and property rights are virtual illusions here.

[Dudeperfect]

Yes, we can have such law to prevent any incidents of bitcoin theft but for that, there must be a law that recognises bitcoin. Right now bitcoin can be classified as a commodity, digital currency or computer software but still this conclusion is debatable on the ground of court. If the law is recognising bitcoin only then another law can prevent activities associated with it.

[diegz]

I haven't heard any law that protects us from thieves. Besides, who would do that and who would implement. Cyber police? I think it is hard to formulate one since bitcoin is not under the protection of the government. I think if that would happen, well, lets prepare, government will regulate bitcoin, which most of us might not like to happen.

[xhomerx10]

Well, stealing is a crime itself, so yes. I don't see why it would be allowed. It's stealing lol.

Stealing requires ownership, Bitcoin network grants no legal ownership rights.

An item doesn't have to be regulated in order to report it stolen!  Where in the world do you guys come up with this shit?!

Ex-U.S. agent gets over six years for bitcoin theft in Silk Road probe

He didn't get in trouble for "stealing bitcoins", that is a BS headline for lay people.
He broke many crimes unrelated to bitcoin and violated certain regulations required as a federal agent.

Carl Force, a former U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agent, admitted to charges of extortion, money laundering and obstruction of justice.

He was not charged with "theft of property" aka stolen bitcoins, because there is no such law.

Almost all things are regulated under law, whether you are aware of it or not.
Currently, bitcoin is not regulated and as such, there are no laws that determine a users rights.

He certainly did get charged and plead guilty for stealing Bitcoin.  Only it wasn't simply stealing, it was extortion!

 Carl Mark Force plead guilty on three counts.  The third count was Extortion under color of official right (which makes it worse), in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1951 which states:

(a)   Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(b)  As used in this section—
(1)   The term “robbery” means the unlawful taking or obtaining of personal property from the person or in the presence of another, against his will, by means of actual or threatened force, or violence, or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his person or property, or property in his custody or possession, or the person or property of a relative or member of his family or of anyone in his company at the time of the taking or obtaining.

(2)   The term “extortion” means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.

(3)   The term “commerce” means commerce within the District of Columbia, or any Territory or Possession of the United States; all commerce between any point in a State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia and any point outside thereof; all commerce between points within the same State through any place outside such State; and all other commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction.


 Bitcoin is property.  Bitcoin is money.  Taking it from the owner without consent is theft.  Taking it from the owner with threats of harm is extortion.  The laws required to protect your property are already on the books - there needn't be a specific Bitcoin law. 
....

No, that is not an official governmental determination.
He willingly pled guilty to those charges without contest, meaning the government didn't
have to prove whether property was extorted. There is no offical judgment, ruling or law
for any high court which determines bitcoin to be a property. In fact, different agencies and
different US Courts have determiend that bitcoin is many different things, sometimes out right
contradicting other judgments.

Citing a single case where the defendant pled guilty without contest does not create official
governmental legislative determination of what bitcoin is and is not.

    I cite a single case because to date there are not many cases involving virtual currencies (yet).  Burden of proof and proof are totally different concepts.  The determination were in the charges themselves.  If the prosecutor didn't feel those charges could have been proven, they would not have been levelled.  At the preliminary hearing, those charges would have been tossed out and ultimately Carl Mark Force would have given them the finger and walked away scot-free but he plead guilty (most likely) because of the overwhelming evidence against him and to get a lighter sentence.
 You don't have to accept that one single case anyway; the IRS - which is bureau of the US federal Department of the Treasury has already deemed that virtual currencies are property.  FINCEN another bureau of the Department of the Treasury has issued similar guidance and the director has said that virtual currencies are subject to the same rule as other currencies.  So if you really need a government definition of value in Bitcoin in order to make the determination of theft, there you have it.  Those are official US government determinations... but I maintain that none are needed to determine theft of bitcoins.

[Kakmakr]

I would like a specific organization to have jurisdiction over all borders on a global scale, for Crypto < Cyber crimes > They should specifically target Cyber crimes, where Crypto currencies are involved. This could be a private organization, funded by the community, but still governed by the local law enforcement agencies.

They provide the skill set, to supply information about the crime that was committed < because local law enforcement do not have that skill set > Go to a Police station now, and report your stolen bitcoins, and they will not even know what a bitcoin is. This will just be a community driven < Info Police > 

[20kevin20]

There will probably be one sooner or later. For now Bitcoin might be awesome but this is the only problem with it: we don't have any laws protecting us. However, that would lead to more control over Bitcoin which isn't wanted by anyone. I, at least, want to remain anonymous.

[AgentofCoin]

Well, stealing is a crime itself, so yes. I don't see why it would be allowed. It's stealing lol.

Stealing requires ownership, Bitcoin network grants no legal ownership rights.

An item doesn't have to be regulated in order to report it stolen!  Where in the world do you guys come up with this shit?!

Ex-U.S. agent gets over six years for bitcoin theft in Silk Road probe

He didn't get in trouble for "stealing bitcoins", that is a BS headline for lay people.
He broke many crimes unrelated to bitcoin and violated certain regulations required as a federal agent.

Carl Force, a former U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agent, admitted to charges of extortion, money laundering and obstruction of justice.

He was not charged with "theft of property" aka stolen bitcoins, because there is no such law.

Almost all things are regulated under law, whether you are aware of it or not.
Currently, bitcoin is not regulated and as such, there are no laws that determine a users rights.

He certainly did get charged and plead guilty for stealing Bitcoin.  Only it wasn't simply stealing, it was extortion!

 Carl Mark Force plead guilty on three counts.  The third count was Extortion under color of official right (which makes it worse), in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1951 which states:

(a)   Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(b)  As used in this section—
(1)   The term “robbery” means the unlawful taking or obtaining of personal property from the person or in the presence of another, against his will, by means of actual or threatened force, or violence, or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his person or property, or property in his custody or possession, or the person or property of a relative or member of his family or of anyone in his company at the time of the taking or obtaining.

(2)   The term “extortion” means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.

(3)   The term “commerce” means commerce within the District of Columbia, or any Territory or Possession of the United States; all commerce between any point in a State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia and any point outside thereof; all commerce between points within the same State through any place outside such State; and all other commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction.


 Bitcoin is property.  Bitcoin is money.  Taking it from the owner without consent is theft.  Taking it from the owner with threats of harm is extortion.  The laws required to protect your property are already on the books - there needn't be a specific Bitcoin law.  
....

No, that is not an official governmental determination.
He willingly pled guilty to those charges without contest, meaning the government didn't
have to prove whether property was extorted. There is no offical judgment, ruling or law
for any high court which determines bitcoin to be a property. In fact, different agencies and
different US Courts have determiend that bitcoin is many different things, sometimes out right
contradicting other judgments.

Citing a single case where the defendant pled guilty without contest does not create official
governmental legislative determination of what bitcoin is and is not.

    I cite a single case because to date there are not many cases involving virtual currencies (yet).  Burden of proof and proof are totally different concepts.  The determination were in the charges themselves.  If the prosecutor didn't feel those charges could have been proven, they would not have been levelled.  At the preliminary hearing, those charges would have been tossed out and ultimately Carl Mark Force would have given them the finger and walked away scot-free but he plead guilty (most likely) because of the overwhelming evidence against him and to get a lighter sentence.
 You don't have to accept that one single case anyway; the IRS - which is bureau of the US federal Department of the Treasury has already deemed that virtual currencies are property.  FINCEN another bureau of the Department of the Treasury has issued similar guidance and the director has said that virtual currencies are subject to the same rule as other currencies.  So if you really need a government definition of value in Bitcoin in order to make the determination of theft, there you have it.  Those are official US government determinations... but I maintain that none are needed to determine theft of bitcoins.

That is not how the US legal system works, sometimes the federal prosecutors (and low level
prosecutors) will lay dozens of charges only to, after many months of trial and testimony, narrow
them down to the only ones they believe they could win. They have the right to add or subtract
charges in mid-case based upon the record made during the trial. Normally, they lay their so many
counts and stick with them, but they still reserve the right to amend them during the trial and not
bound to the original charges.

There is no doubt that the government had overwhelming evidence against him, they were
watching him in real time and letting him hang himself, was my understanding. But the fact
that he pled guilty does not mean that the extortion charge proves that bitcoin is a legal property.

I am aware of what the IRS says and their statement is only an advisory opinion. It is not an official
determination that is based on law and legislative definitions, it is only an opinion on how US citizen
should determine what bitcoin is for the purpose of paying taxes. So the IRS says that it is a property,
but only as far as it determines it as a taxable asset, otherwise for things like property rights and thefts
and etc, they don't really care and have no opinion or advice. There is no doubt that US Citizen should
pay any taxes on the profit from bitcoins at the time of selling them into fiat, but anything beyond the IRS
is speculative until those agencies provide their opinions or the legislators create laws that define and regulate
it.Also, and most interestingly, IRS has no way currently to audit your coins to determine if you are even
complying with their advisory opinion, so even if they say its property for tax purposes, they themselves
admit by omission that they can't force or determine if you have bitcoins or if you should pay taxes on them.
It is voluntary and in normal governmental legal determinations and laws, nothing is voluntary but mandatory.

In theory, if bitcoin is a property, it should be reported to the FBI and they should investigate each theft report
and provide the victim with the result of the investigation as well as information into any prosecutions since bitcoin
is a borderless, cross-state, international currency payment system. It would legally fall within in jurisdiction due
to the cross state nature in the US and how the Bitcoin network works, in general. My understating now is the FBI
doesn't care and tells users to report it to their local police departments, which is obviously going to go no where.
The FBI doesn't want to look into each bitcoin theft because they are already overloaded with thefts from federally
insured banking systems.

[xhomerx10]

Well, stealing is a crime itself, so yes. I don't see why it would be allowed. It's stealing lol.

Stealing requires ownership, Bitcoin network grants no legal ownership rights.

An item doesn't have to be regulated in order to report it stolen!  Where in the world do you guys come up with this shit?!

Ex-U.S. agent gets over six years for bitcoin theft in Silk Road probe

He didn't get in trouble for "stealing bitcoins", that is a BS headline for lay people.
He broke many crimes unrelated to bitcoin and violated certain regulations required as a federal agent.

Carl Force, a former U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agent, admitted to charges of extortion, money laundering and obstruction of justice.

He was not charged with "theft of property" aka stolen bitcoins, because there is no such law.

Almost all things are regulated under law, whether you are aware of it or not.
Currently, bitcoin is not regulated and as such, there are no laws that determine a users rights.

He certainly did get charged and plead guilty for stealing Bitcoin.  Only it wasn't simply stealing, it was extortion!

 Carl Mark Force plead guilty on three counts.  The third count was Extortion under color of official right (which makes it worse), in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1951 which states:

(a)   Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(b)  As used in this section—
(1)   The term “robbery” means the unlawful taking or obtaining of personal property from the person or in the presence of another, against his will, by means of actual or threatened force, or violence, or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his person or property, or property in his custody or possession, or the person or property of a relative or member of his family or of anyone in his company at the time of the taking or obtaining.

(2)   The term “extortion” means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.

(3)   The term “commerce” means commerce within the District of Columbia, or any Territory or Possession of the United States; all commerce between any point in a State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia and any point outside thereof; all commerce between points within the same State through any place outside such State; and all other commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction.


 Bitcoin is property.  Bitcoin is money.  Taking it from the owner without consent is theft.  Taking it from the owner with threats of harm is extortion.  The laws required to protect your property are already on the books - there needn't be a specific Bitcoin law.  
....

No, that is not an official governmental determination.
He willingly pled guilty to those charges without contest, meaning the government didn't
have to prove whether a legal property was extorted. Obviously, the federal agent "extorted" the victim,
but that does not prove that the gain was a legal property, only that the victim was coerced with
threats to provide some form of compensation. "Extortion" is more about the act of threatening to get a gain.
Not whether that gain is a certain property type or not, that is irrelevant to the threat for gain.

There is no official judgment, ruling or law for any high court which determines bitcoin to be a
legal property. In fact, different agencies and different US Courts have determined that bitcoin is many
different things, sometimes out right contradicting other judgments and opinions.

Citing a single case where the defendant pled guilty without contest does not create official
governmental legislative determination of what bitcoin is and is not. It only applies in this case.

US money can not be owned and is not a property.
So if bitcoin is money and property, that would contradict US law.

If you think bitcoin is a property, what aspect is the part that you own?
If the bitcoins never leave the blockchain system, how do you own them?
If another user generates your private key by chance, does he own those coins too?
If the Bitcoin network disappeared tomorrow, where did your property go?

If your answer is so simple, why isn't there a clear understanding between agencies?

The Bitcoin system does not grant users any rights and is use at your own risk.
If the government wants to declare it a legal property type, they don't understand what Bitcoin and
the bitcoin blockchain is on a technical level. Ownership and property rights are virtual illusions here.

 I see you wrote more while I was typing (and making my lunch for work tomorrow).

What aspect do I own?
  The input, the amount of Bitcoin and the output signed by the private key of the input which is kept in your wallet and usable by you using your private key.
If they never leave the blockchain how do I own them?
  The blockchain is merely a ledger for tracking spends. You own them by virtue of the private key (and the record of transfer)
If another user generates your private key by chance, does he own those coins too?
  That will never happen.  It's possible but not probable.
If the Bitcoin network disappeared tomorrow, where did your property go?
 Failed investment. I could  write it off on my taxes as a capital loss
If your answer is so simple, why isn't there a clear understanding between agencies?
  I actually don't know this to be true... but how many agencies need to agree when bitcoin evidently has value? ~$700 USD per BTC at present

[carlisle1]

It is illegal but even we have the law stolent bitcoins it is impossible to trace those thieves since bitcoin is anonymous and you can use bitcoin mixer to be anonymous your transaction and done you are far to  caught by NBI or police..
And there is a law even in bitcoin there should be a laws and punishment for those thief's

it can't be possible , there can not be a law when it comes to bitcoin . if you want bitcoin or stolen bitcoins to have a law then you are also saying that you want bitcoin to be controlled by law and the government which is not favorable for other bitcoin users .

[xhomerx10]

Well, stealing is a crime itself, so yes. I don't see why it would be allowed. It's stealing lol.

Stealing requires ownership, Bitcoin network grants no legal ownership rights.

An item doesn't have to be regulated in order to report it stolen!  Where in the world do you guys come up with this shit?!

Ex-U.S. agent gets over six years for bitcoin theft in Silk Road probe

He didn't get in trouble for "stealing bitcoins", that is a BS headline for lay people.
He broke many crimes unrelated to bitcoin and violated certain regulations required as a federal agent.

Carl Force, a former U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agent, admitted to charges of extortion, money laundering and obstruction of justice.

He was not charged with "theft of property" aka stolen bitcoins, because there is no such law.

Almost all things are regulated under law, whether you are aware of it or not.
Currently, bitcoin is not regulated and as such, there are no laws that determine a users rights.

He certainly did get charged and plead guilty for stealing Bitcoin.  Only it wasn't simply stealing, it was extortion!

 Carl Mark Force plead guilty on three counts.  The third count was Extortion under color of official right (which makes it worse), in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1951 which states:

(a)   Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(b)  As used in this section—
(1)   The term “robbery” means the unlawful taking or obtaining of personal property from the person or in the presence of another, against his will, by means of actual or threatened force, or violence, or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his person or property, or property in his custody or possession, or the person or property of a relative or member of his family or of anyone in his company at the time of the taking or obtaining.

(2)   The term “extortion” means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.

(3)   The term “commerce” means commerce within the District of Columbia, or any Territory or Possession of the United States; all commerce between any point in a State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia and any point outside thereof; all commerce between points within the same State through any place outside such State; and all other commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction.


 Bitcoin is property.  Bitcoin is money.  Taking it from the owner without consent is theft.  Taking it from the owner with threats of harm is extortion.  The laws required to protect your property are already on the books - there needn't be a specific Bitcoin law. 
....

No, that is not an official governmental determination.
He willingly pled guilty to those charges without contest, meaning the government didn't
have to prove whether property was extorted. There is no offical judgment, ruling or law
for any high court which determines bitcoin to be a property. In fact, different agencies and
different US Courts have determiend that bitcoin is many different things, sometimes out right
contradicting other judgments.

Citing a single case where the defendant pled guilty without contest does not create official
governmental legislative determination of what bitcoin is and is not.

    I cite a single case because to date there are not many cases involving virtual currencies (yet).  Burden of proof and proof are totally different concepts.  The determination were in the charges themselves.  If the prosecutor didn't feel those charges could have been proven, they would not have been levelled.  At the preliminary hearing, those charges would have been tossed out and ultimately Carl Mark Force would have given them the finger and walked away scot-free but he plead guilty (most likely) because of the overwhelming evidence against him and to get a lighter sentence.
 You don't have to accept that one single case anyway; the IRS - which is bureau of the US federal Department of the Treasury has already deemed that virtual currencies are property.  FINCEN another bureau of the Department of the Treasury has issued similar guidance and the director has said that virtual currencies are subject to the same rule as other currencies.  So if you really need a government definition of value in Bitcoin in order to make the determination of theft, there you have it.  Those are official US government determinations... but I maintain that none are needed to determine theft of bitcoins.

That is not how the US legal system works, sometimes the federal prosecutors (and low level
prosecutors) will lay dozens of charges only to, after many months of trial and testimony, narrow
them down to the only ones they believe they could win. They have the right to add or subtract
charges in mid-case based upon the record made during the trial. Normally, they lay their so many
counts and stick with them, but they still reserve the right to amend them during the trial and not
bound to the original charges.

There is no doubt that the government had overwhelming evidence against him, they were
watching him in real time and letting him hang himself, was my understanding. But the fact
that he pled guilty does not mean that the extortion charge proves that bitcoin is a legal property.

I am aware of what the IRS says and their statement is only an advisory opinion. It is not an official
determination that is based on law and legislative definitions, it is only an opinion on how US citizen
should determine what bitcoin is for the purpose of paying taxes. So the IRS says that it is a property,
but only as far as it determines it as a taxable asset, otherwise for things like property rights and thefts
and etc, they don't really care and have no opinion or advice. There is no doubt that US Citizen should
pay any taxes on the profit from bitcoins at the time of selling them into fiat, but anything beyond the IRS
is speculative until those agencies provide their opinions or the legislators create laws that define and regulate it.

In theory, if bitcoin is a property, it should be reported to the FBI and they should investigate each theft report
and provide the victim with the result of the investigation as well as information into any prosecutions since bitcoin
is a borderless, cross-state, international currency payment system. It would legally fall within in jurisdiction due
to the cross state nature of the network. My understating now is the FBI doesn't care and tells users to report it
to their local police departments, which is obviously going to go no where. The FBI doesn't want to look into each
bitcoin theft becase they are already overloaded with thefts from federally insured banking systems.

 You make some very good points which I can't dispute.

[AgentofCoin]

...

...

....

No, that is not an official governmental determination.
He willingly pled guilty to those charges without contest, meaning the government didn't
have to prove whether a legal property was extorted. Obviously, the federal agent "extorted" the victim,
but that does not prove that the gain was a legal property, only that the victim was coerced with
threats to provide some form of compensation. "Extortion" is more about the act of threatening to get a gain.
Not whether that gain is a certain property type or not, that is irrelevant to the threat for gain.

There is no official judgment, ruling or law for any high court which determines bitcoin to be a
legal property. In fact, different agencies and different US Courts have determined that bitcoin is many
different things, sometimes out right contradicting other judgments and opinions.

Citing a single case where the defendant pled guilty without contest does not create official
governmental legislative determination of what bitcoin is and is not. It only applies in this case.

US money can not be owned and is not a property.
So if bitcoin is money and property, that would contradict US law.

If you think bitcoin is a property, what aspect is the part that you own?
If the bitcoins never leave the blockchain system, how do you own them?
If another user generates your private key by chance, does he own those coins too?
If the Bitcoin network disappeared tomorrow, where did your property go?

If your answer is so simple, why isn't there a clear understanding between agencies?

The Bitcoin system does not grant users any rights and is use at your own risk.
If the government wants to declare it a legal property type, they don't understand what Bitcoin and
the bitcoin blockchain is on a technical level. Ownership and property rights are virtual illusions here.

 I see you wrote more while I was typing (and making my lunch for work tomorrow).

What aspect do I own?
  The input, the amount of Bitcoin and the output signed by the private key of the input which is kept in your wallet and usable by you using your private key.

That is only a ledger entry. The developers and software specifically grant no rights of ownership to anyone.
You can not own those coins since the blockchain never transfers ownership from itself. It always stays within
its own possession, that was the purpose of the system to prevent easy regulation. Your private key is only a
temporary control right, not a possession or ownership right.

If they never leave the blockchain how do I own them?
  The blockchain is merely a ledger for tracking spends. You own them by virtue of the private key (and the record of transfer)

The blockchain is not merely a ledger. The blockchain is the bitcoins themselves.
On a technical level they are the same entity. According to your logic, then your privatekey
by virtue grants ownership rights over the blockchain itself, but obviously you can not,
so thus you can't own the bitcoins at all. Technically ownership is illusionary in this system.
You probably only own the privatekey, whether there are coins in it or not.

If another user generates your private key by chance, does he own those coins too?
  That will never happen.  It's possible but not probable.

But that doesn't answer the legal question of ownership rights.
Legal ownership is normally determined by third party registration agencies.
So, if two people have the same control of bitcoins within the an address, who is the legal owner?
The blockchain doesn't care, they both control. That is the Bitcoin system.
The first to move, is the next temporary controller.

If the Bitcoin network disappeared tomorrow, where did your property go?
 Failed investment. I could  write it off on my taxes as a capital loss

True, but that is only to the IRS and such tax agencies.
If there was no ability to "write off the loss", such as prior to 2013,
then your property would just be gone because you never truly owned or possessed it.
You would have only had a temporary control, that fell into the abyss.

By your view point, it seems you would prefer regulation since it would allow you to be bailed out from
your own actions. For example, it would allow you and other to not fully lose from your bad choices, interestingly
in opposition of the very reason why Satoshi created Bitcoin in the first place, to prevent bailouts and manipulation
of financial and insurance systems. I think Satoshi created the system as is, and not allow the granting of rights, so
that the Bitcoin system COULD survive into the future. If it must conform to the laws, it would die from having no
novel purpose or reason for existence. Its true value comes from not being directly regulatable or legal property.

If your answer is so simple, why isn't there a clear understanding between agencies?
  I actually don't know this to be true... but how many agencies need to agree when bitcoin evidently has value? ~$700 USD per BTC at present

Value is irrelevant to me here, I only care about the legal aspects.
All agencies disagree on what bitcoin is because there is no official definition on what it is.
Each agency will govern bitcoin as they see fit until there is a legislative decision and law.


Ultimately, I may be very easily proven wrong in a few months to years when laws are passed or whatever,
but I think that if that day comes, it will be a marker in Bitcoin history of when things began to go backwards
and fall apart as opposed to when things "went to the moon" and "bitcoin wins". I believe that the world has to
conform to Bitcoin and not the other way around. If we do ultimately conform to governmental regulations, I think
personally I could realistically say that Bitcoin has failed in what one of its original goals was.

If Bitcoin users are granted rights by governments, there will be many resulting legal issues with the system.
Clean and Dirty coins will likely be the first attack from these new regulations.

[CraigWrightBTC]

Could there be a law on stolen bitcoins? What if there would be a law punishing those who steal bitcoins and those people behind scam sites? And if so, is it necessary to have such law? I'm just wondering, if there would be such law about stolen bitcoins, it could be a big relief to us bitcoin users. But then, there are so many questions and issues that goes with this ideal that makes me skeptical about it. 

I think if bitcoin become more famous and there are many people who use it, law for stolen bitcoin will be there because activity of theft is illegal on every countries and it is must there are rules about it although will make other problem is like bitcoin users is not becoming anonymous because they must give their indentity.

[n0ne]

Already bitcoin is decentralized, so initiation of such laws into stolen bitcoin issues is really not possible. What most users quoted is a different scenario with silk road probe. Its our own responsibility to keep our bitcoin much safer.

[Zadicar]

Could there be a law on stolen bitcoins? What if there would be a law punishing those who steal bitcoins and those people behind scam sites? And if so, is it necessary to have such law? I'm just wondering, if there would be such law about stolen bitcoins, it could be a big relief to us bitcoin users. But then, there are so many questions and issues that goes with this ideal that makes me skeptical about it. 

Imposing  and  making  law on that  would   be  possible  but   the  question  is  they would really have a hard time to trace  those   thiefs for sure  because  of bitcoins  anonymity  and  also  making law  with this  seems  impossible  because  bitcoin isnt regulated   at all  therefore  not all countries  would  really consider  this   thats why   scammers out there  are  hard to find  because there are no  laws  who  haunts them down.

[darklus123]

Could there be a law on stolen bitcoins? What if there would be a law punishing those who steal bitcoins and those people behind scam sites? And if so, is it necessary to have such law? I'm just wondering, if there would be such law about stolen bitcoins, it could be a big relief to us bitcoin users. But then, there are so many questions and issues that goes with this ideal that makes me skeptical about it. 

Stolen bitcoins might have a law? sadly no but the thing there is that stealing something to whatever it is, will always be considered as a disobeying law which only means that it is punishable by law. The only problem if bitcoin was being involved it is really hard to trace that certain person who stole your bitcoin(which is a property).

[avatar_kiyoshi]

Interesting topic.
Well at the beginning bitcoin designed decentralized which it's not covered by government and law. This is impossible to reporting to cybercrime police if your coin stolen, instead it can be a boomerang if your country doesn't allow bitcoin activity.

But the question is how there's country who make it legal for bitcoin so, we can report it to the police if we got stolen our bitcoin?