Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[billyjoeallen]

The Feds claim they've already sold over 3 Million dollars worth. The whom? does anybody know?

If they're smart they sold the coins all over the country via LocalBitcoins.com so they could then arrest all those people for operating an exchange without a license or disregarding AML rules.

That's entrapment. Local cops do that kind of shit all the time, but the Feds at least usually pretend to follow the rules when they could so easily be shown to be actually initiating the "crime" they are prosecuting.

I do not believe that this scenario would legally be considered entrapment.

I've had this conversation with cops several times. Nothing is ever entrapment. OK, Give me an example of what YOU consider entrapment.

A cop is not the person to ask. An officers job is to catch people committing crimes and arrest them. You don't get to scream "entrapment!" and walk away without an arrest. Your lawyer just gets an additional potential defense to get you off.

First two relevant (as in, not yahoo answers) google search results for "entrapment examples" turns up:

http://nationalparalegal.edu/public_documents/courseware_asp_files/criminalLaw/defenses/Entrapment.asp

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/entrapment-basics-33987.html

Some copy and pastes from those sites, for the lazy.

Case Example 1. Mary-Anne Berry is charged with selling illegal drugs to an undercover police officer. Berry testifies that the drugs were for her personal use and that the reason she sold some to the officer is that at a party, the officer falsely said that she wanted some drugs for her mom, who was in a lot of pain. According to Berry, the officer even assured Berry that she wasn't a cop and wasn't setting Berry up. The police officer's actions do not amount to entrapment. Police officers are allowed to tell lies. The officer gave Berry an opportunity to break the law, but the officer did not engage in extreme or overbearing behavior.

Case Example 2. Mary-Anne Berry is charged with selling illegal drugs to an undercover police officer. Berry testifies that, "The drugs were for my personal use. For nearly two weeks, the undercover officer stopped by my apartment and pleaded with me to sell her some of my stash because her mom was extremely sick and needed the drugs for pain relief. I kept refusing. When the officer told me that the drugs would allow her mom to be comfortable for the few days she had left to live, I broke down and sold her some drugs. She immediately arrested me." The undercover agent's repeated entreaties and lies are sufficiently extreme to constitute entrapment and result in a not guilty verdict.

Case Example. Let's say Jim is charged with serving as a lookout during a liquor store robbery carried out by a street gang. Jim claims that Snitch, a neighborhood friend who turned out to be an undercover police officer, entrapped him by telling him that he had to participate in the robbery or Snitch would be unable to protect him from gang retribution. In a state that employs an objective test for entrapment, a jury decides whether Snitch's actions would have induced a normally law-abiding person to participate in the robbery. In a state that employs a subjective test for entrapment, the prosecutor can offer evidence of Jim's predisposition to commit the crime, including that Jim had a lengthy rap sheet and that he was anxious to join the street gang and wanted to prove his mettle by participating in a violent crime. A jury would then decide whether Jim participated in the robbery out of his own willingness to do so, regardless of Snitch's actions.

1) Fred, a law abiding citizen, is walking home from work one afternoon when Wilma, a prostitute, approaches him and offers her services for the price of fifty dollars. Fred has never used the services of a prostitute before, but he decides to give it a try and he takes Wilma up on her offer. Wilma leads Fred to a nearby motel room and, once inside, she identifies herself as an undercover police officer and arrests Fred. In this situation, an entrapment defense will probably not be available to Fred because Fred responded readily to the opportunity to commit this crime. Therefore, although Wilma provided Fred with the opportunity to commit the crime, she did not induce him to do it.

2) Fred, a law abiding citizen, is walking home from work one day when Wilma, a prostitute, approaches him and offers him her services for the price of fifty dollars. Fred tells Wilma he is not interested and continues walking. Over the next several blocks Wilma follows Fred and repeatedly offers her services to him, which Fred repeatedly rejects. However, after a few minutes, Wilma’s repeated offers pique Fred’s curiosity and he decides to give it a try. Wilma then leads Fred to a nearby motel room and once inside she identifies herself as an undercover police officer and arrests Fred. In this case, Fred will have the entrapment defense at his disposal because Wilma repeatedly requested that Fred commit the crime and it was only after several rejections by Fred that Wilma succeeded in getting him to actually commit the crime. Therefore, in this case, Wilma has actually induced Fred, who does not seem to be predisposed to committing this kind of crime, into committing the crime.

Note how the localbitcoins scenario involves no undue pressure to buy, and it would be quite easy to convince a jury that you would have bought those bitcoins regardless of whether you had seen their ad.

Not if I was on that jury.
"undue" is subjective. How were you going to buy bitcoins if they weren't for sale? If I'm a firefighter (and I am), I can't get credit for putting out a fire when I put oily rags next to a heater. Placing the ad is encouraging and enabling the "crime". If I as a private citizen did it, could be prosecuted for soliciting, then when a policemen does the same thing, he is entrapping. Fucking cops need to understand their job is crime prevention primarily and secondarily to assist in the solving and prosecution of crimes. Turning people into criminals so they can have someone to arrest is itself a criminal act.

[1714483769]

1714483769

[1714483769]

1714483769

[1714483769]

1714483769

[1714483769]

1714483769

[JorgeStolfi]

The Feds claim they've already sold over 3 Million dollars worth. The whom? does anybody know?

If they're smart they sold the coins all over the country via LocalBitcoins.com so they could then arrest all those people for operating an exchange without a license or disregarding AML rules.

[igorr]

View Screen Capture

[Spaceman_Spiff]

View Screen Capture

This picture needs a cat.

[JayJuanGee]

The Feds claim they've already sold over 3 Million dollars worth. The whom? does anybody know?

If they're smart they sold the coins all over the country via LocalBitcoins.com so they could then arrest all those people for operating an exchange without a license or disregarding AML rules.

That's entrapment. Local cops do that kind of shit all the time, but the Feds at least usually pretend to follow the rules when they could so easily be shown to be actually initiating the "crime" they are prosecuting.

For a guy who is usually propagating anti-federal government rhetoric, you (BJA) surely are being inconsistent here to be giving the fed govt the benefit of the doubt in their policing shenanigans. 

This is one of the frequent themes that I have witnessed with supposed libertarians who will want to get rid of the fed govt when it comes to its role in providing a vast array of social services - however, when it comes to various policing functions or property protection functions, some anti-govt folks seem to harbor some kind of blindness that the federal government is more likely to follow rules.  Maybe I am being too hard on libertarians, here, and this inconsistent viewpoint is merely yours, BJA.

You are adjusting the facts to attempt to fit your assertion, but it still remains quite fantastical to assert that any major discount will be achieved through a mass sale of BTC.

[octaft]

Not if I was on that jury.
"undue" is subjective. How were you going to buy bitcoins if they weren't for sale? If I'm a firefighter (and I am), I can't get credit for putting out a fire when I put oily rags next to a heater. Placing the ad is encouraging and enabling the "crime". If I as a private citizen did it, could be prosecuted for soliciting, then when a policemen does the same thing, he is entrapping. Fucking cops need to understand their job is crime prevention primarily and secondarily to assist in the solving and prosecution of crimes. Turning people into criminals so they can have someone to arrest is itself a criminal act.

So let's say I go onto a website to buy cocaine. I see an ad for cocaine, and contact the seller to buy it. How was I in any way pressured or entrapped to buy cocaine? I clearly was seeking out a way to buy cocaine, and almost certainly would have broken the law regardless of whether that person was an undercover cop. Now replace "cocaine" with "bitcoins" and it is the exact same situation. You absolutely did not go to localbitcoins with the express intent to not buy bitcoins, just like you didn't go onto that drug website to not buy cocaine. If you didn't plan to buy bitcoins/drugs on these websites and were just visiting out of curiosity, none of the ads on there could pressure you into changing your mind about it.

There are some gray areas regarding entrapment. This is absolutely not one of them. Even if the ad was sent to me directly regarding the sale, as long as they didn't keep hounding me after I said no, it would not be entrapment.

EDIT: To further address your comments, "turning you into a criminal" is entirely entrapment. Passively offering to sell you something that you likely would have purchased anyway is not "turning you into a criminal," because you had plans to commit the crime, anyway, and just happened to be unfortunate enough to do it with an undercover officer.

[billyjoeallen]

The Feds claim they've already sold over 3 Million dollars worth. The whom? does anybody know?

If they're smart they sold the coins all over the country via LocalBitcoins.com so they could then arrest all those people for operating an exchange without a license or disregarding AML rules.

That's entrapment. Local cops do that kind of shit all the time, but the Feds at least usually pretend to follow the rules when they could so easily be shown to be actually initiating the "crime" they are prosecuting.

For a guy who is usually propagating anti-federal government rhetoric, you (BJA) surely are being inconsistent here to be giving the fed govt the benefit of the doubt in their policing shenanigans. 

This is one of the frequent themes that I have witnessed with supposed libertarians who will want to get rid of the fed govt when it comes to its role in providing a vast array of social services - however, when it comes to various policing functions or property protection functions, some anti-govt folks seem to harbor some kind of blindness that the federal government is more likely to follow rules.  Maybe I am being too hard on libertarians, here, and this inconsistent viewpoint is merely yours, BJA.

You are adjusting the facts to attempt to fit your assertion, but it still remains quite fantastical to assert that any major discount will be achieved through a mass sale of BTC.

Jesus Christ, I'm not defending the FBI. I'm merely stating that they receive special training on undercover procedures that will hold up in court. They don't follow the rules all the time, but in certain circumstances they follow the rules better than local cops not out of the goodness of their hearts or out of some higher belief in fairness but because they don't want to have their perps get off on what they consider a technicality.

I'm not saying the FBI coins will sell for/ have been sold for a major discount. I'm saying I don't know, and the FBI isn't forthcoming with the information. It's certainly possible.

[adamstgBit]

I bet the FBI sold their coins to the NSA

 


it was silly of us to think we'd get a piece of the action...

[freebit13]

Not if I was on that jury.
"undue" is subjective. How were you going to buy bitcoins if they weren't for sale? If I'm a firefighter (and I am), I can't get credit for putting out a fire when I put oily rags next to a heater. Placing the ad is encouraging and enabling the "crime". If I as a private citizen did it, could be prosecuted for soliciting, then when a policemen does the same thing, he is entrapping. Fucking cops need to understand their job is crime prevention primarily and secondarily to assist in the solving and prosecution of crimes. Turning people into criminals so they can have someone to arrest is itself a criminal act.

So let's say I go onto a website to buy cocaine. I see an ad for cocaine, and contact the seller to buy it. How was I in any way pressured or entrapped to buy cocaine? I clearly was seeking out a way to buy cocaine, and almost certainly would have broken the law regardless of whether that person was an undercover cop. Now replace "cocaine" with "bitcoins" and it is the exact same situation. You absolutely did not go to localbitcoins with the express intent to not buy bitcoins, just like you didn't go onto that drug website to not buy cocaine.

There are some gray areas regarding entrapment. This is absolutely not one of them. Even if the ad was sent to me directly regarding the sale, as long as they didn't keep hounding me after I said no, it would not be entrapment.

I think this goes back to what Billy said earlier: it's not a cops job to be going around putting up ads for cocaine. It's their job to prevent crime, not incite/entice crime.

[Cassius]

I bet the FBI sold their coins to the NSA

 


it was silly of us to think we'd get a piece of the action...

That's if the Chinese government didn't offer them a better price. 

[Post-Cosmic]

 I've discovered (or merely re-confirmed, in some of these cases) that :

 ~> I hate high prices.
 ~> Hate Low-Volatility & 'Retail-Friendly Price Stability'.
 ~> Hate regulation/integration w/ existing fiat-based economies.
 ~> Hate reliance on widespread merchant adoption & VC investment.
 ~> Hate the idea of crypto moving away from its anarcho-libertarian roots.
 ~> Hate big government (especially the PBoC's bs ).

[JorgeStolfi]

Government auctions are tricky.  For example I own a couple of lots in a small New Mexico development. I checked the tax rolls and discovered that most of the neighboring lots were auctioned off for back taxes. The auction price was about 10 percent of the market price. I asked several times to be put on the list for the next auction and I was never notified. The people that participate in these auctions have inside connections and the "contraband" gets too often sold at substantially lower than market rates. It's part corruption and part incompetence.

Governments will not go out of their way to notify people of such auctions.  They list them in some obscure site or government publication. There are people who make good money by scanning those places every day, showing up at those auctions, and re-selling the goods they buy on the market with large profit margins.  Since the government officials do not get to keep any of that money, they have little incentive to get better prices.  As long as there are a few bids for each item, they have done their job, and that is all they care.

EDIT: the auctions may also be run by private companies under contract by the government, in which case foul play and kickbacks are much "safer" and therefore likely.

Let's just ask the thread: Has anyone attempted to buy the FBI coins or inquired as to how and where they could be purchased? The Feds claim they've already sold over 3 Million dollars worth. The whom? does anybody know?

AFAIK none of the Silk Road coins have been auctioned yet; the court authorized the sale only recently, and appeals may still be possible.  It is not clear that those 3 M$ of "seized revenue" from the Slomp/J case were bitcoins.  In the accounts I read the police did not said so.  The reporter may have guessed that they seized bitcoins and exchanged for cash;  but would be very strange for the police to sell the coins (or any merchandise) before even arresting the man and filing the charges against him.  The seized "proceeds" may have been dollars or foreign currency (which they are allowed to exchange for dollars immediately, I believe).

[dyland]

Ha, I chose exactly right.

450 as of May 1.

[billyjoeallen]

Not if I was on that jury.
"undue" is subjective. How were you going to buy bitcoins if they weren't for sale? If I'm a firefighter (and I am), I can't get credit for putting out a fire when I put oily rags next to a heater. Placing the ad is encouraging and enabling the "crime". If I as a private citizen did it, could be prosecuted for soliciting, then when a policemen does the same thing, he is entrapping. Fucking cops need to understand their job is crime prevention primarily and secondarily to assist in the solving and prosecution of crimes. Turning people into criminals so they can have someone to arrest is itself a criminal act.

So let's say I go onto a website to buy cocaine. I see an ad for cocaine, and contact the seller to buy it. How was I in any way pressured or entrapped to buy cocaine? I clearly was seeking out a way to buy cocaine, and almost certainly would have broken the law regardless of whether that person was an undercover cop. Now replace "cocaine" with "bitcoins" and it is the exact same situation. You absolutely did not go to localbitcoins with the express intent to not buy bitcoins, just like you didn't go onto that drug website to not buy cocaine.

There are some gray areas regarding entrapment. This is absolutely not one of them. Even if the ad was sent to me directly regarding the sale, as long as they didn't keep hounding me after I said no, it would not be entrapment.

EDIT: To further address your comments, "turning you into a criminal" is entirely entrapment. Passively offering to sell you something that you likely would have purchased anyway is not "turning you into a criminal," because you had plans to commit the crime, anyway, and just happened to be unfortunate enough to do it with an undercover officer.

How do you know if someone likely would have purchased something anyway? That's not just a subjective judgement. That would require psychic powers. It's not a crime to have a criminal predisposition. It's a crime to violate the law and if that particular law would not have been violated by that particular person at that particular time and place without the police involvement, then it's entrapment. If you offer a certain number of bitcoins for a certain price at a certain place or time, then all you know for sure is that the accused wanted to buy those particular bitcoins for that particular price ant that particular time, and wouldn't have done so if he didn't have the opportunity.

You're not passively offering to sell something if you place an ad. If someone come up to you out of the blue and asks to buy your bitcoins and you agree, that's passive. Advertising is active.

[dreamspark]

Because you're buying the oil from Iran.

Who like the rest of the world primarily trade oil in the world reserve currency which it just so happens you are able to send them.

[octaft]

Not if I was on that jury.
"undue" is subjective. How were you going to buy bitcoins if they weren't for sale? If I'm a firefighter (and I am), I can't get credit for putting out a fire when I put oily rags next to a heater. Placing the ad is encouraging and enabling the "crime". If I as a private citizen did it, could be prosecuted for soliciting, then when a policemen does the same thing, he is entrapping. Fucking cops need to understand their job is crime prevention primarily and secondarily to assist in the solving and prosecution of crimes. Turning people into criminals so they can have someone to arrest is itself a criminal act.

So let's say I go onto a website to buy cocaine. I see an ad for cocaine, and contact the seller to buy it. How was I in any way pressured or entrapped to buy cocaine? I clearly was seeking out a way to buy cocaine, and almost certainly would have broken the law regardless of whether that person was an undercover cop. Now replace "cocaine" with "bitcoins" and it is the exact same situation. You absolutely did not go to localbitcoins with the express intent to not buy bitcoins, just like you didn't go onto that drug website to not buy cocaine.

There are some gray areas regarding entrapment. This is absolutely not one of them. Even if the ad was sent to me directly regarding the sale, as long as they didn't keep hounding me after I said no, it would not be entrapment.

I think this goes back to what Billy said earlier: it's not a cops job to be going around putting up ads for cocaine. It's their job to prevent crime, not incite/entice crime.

That is a valid opinion, but not the way the law currently sees it.

[FlyingLotus]

We're getting close to the long term trend line again are we not?

Any thoughts on what is happening then? I know at the moment we cannot judge givent the various holidays, but every time we've got close previously all we have seen is massive dumpage

[billyjoeallen]

Because you're buying the oil from Iran.

Who like the rest of the world primarily trade oil in the world reserve currency which it just so happens you are able to send them.

Iranian banks have been cut off from the international bank of settlements due to sanctions and pressure from the U.S. gov.

[MNDan]

Don't quote igorr - he's the most ignored poster here for obvious reasons...

[octaft]

How do you know if someone likely would have purchased something anyway? That's not just a subjective judgement. That would require psychic powers. It's not a crime to have a criminal predisposition. It's a crime to violate the law and if that particular law would not have been violated by that particular person at that particular time and place without the police involvement, then it's entrapment. If you offer a certain number of bitcoins for a certain price at a certain place or time, then all you know for sure is that the accused wanted to buy those particular bitcoins for that particular price ant that particular time, and wouldn't have done so if he didn't have the opportunity.

You're not passively offering to sell something if you place an ad. If someone come up to you out of the blue and asks to buy your bitcoins and you agree, that's passive. Advertising is active.

What are the odds that someone goes to cocaine dealer/localbitcoins with no intent to buy, then suddenly decides to buy precisely because of one ad that likely does not overly stand out from the others? Even if that leap of faith did turn out to be true, good luck convincing 12 people of that with a prosecutor working them. I would think a good lawyer would recommend a different defense.