Any other Americans considering a claim against the FBI over SilkRoad?

[bryant.coleman]

I'm curios about the price you're willing to risk finding out that you're a Mexican drug lord that has shipped thousands of kilos of narcotics via SR:).

Hmm... Mexican drug lords are not that intelligent. Most of the drug vendors in SR were from Canada and the EU (especially Netherlands and Germany), in addition to those in the US.

[niothor]

I'm curios about the price you're willing to risk finding out that you're a Mexican drug lord that has shipped thousands of kilos of narcotics via SR:).

Hmm... Mexican drug lords are not that intelligent. Most of the drug vendors in SR were from Canada and the EU (especially Netherlands and Germany), in addition to those in the US.

Lols,I was joking about the consequences.
They will label him as a Mexican Venezuelan Colombian Chinese pirate drug dealer Somali rapist the moment he submits his request:)

[7Priest7]

I don't do illegal drugs.
I visited silk road(out of curiosity, not intent to purchase/consume).

I have seen people benefit greatly from Marijuana.

Silk Road was a good thing for BTC. It gave people a reason to buy BTC.

What is the point of a decentralized peer 2 peer network outside of avoiding the law?

Tor = For violation of law(privacy? ROFLMAO)
BTC = For violation of law(Sorta like torrent, other uses exist, their usefulness is negligible)
Torrent = For violation of law(The existence of "legitimate" torrents does not change the fact that torrents are useful for one thing(piracy))

You guys need to stop coming down on people for things that your local law man says is bad.

The irony here, how many of you U.S. BTC fans believe you have freedom?
I know, I don't.

[Spendulus]

Are you still considering it? And if we hit 500?
I'm curios about the price you're willing to risk finding out that you're a Mexican drug lord that has shipped thousands of kilos of narcotics via SR:).

LOL people in Mexico can't even use Ebay that country is so screwed up.  And with NAFTA, they just move their stuff across the border to designated distribution points. 

They never needed anything like Silk Road and have no use for it.

[bryant.coleman]

I don't do illegal drugs.
I visited silk road(out of curiosity, not intent to purchase/consume).

I don't know much about SR (was never a member). But even at its peak, less than 50% of the merchandise items were drugs, weapons and other illegal stuff. The rest consisted of Bullion, BTC to Cash offers, Bitcoin miners.etc

[beetcoin]

I don't do illegal drugs.
I visited silk road(out of curiosity, not intent to purchase/consume).

I don't know much about SR (was never a member). But even at its peak, less than 50% of the merchandise items were drugs, weapons and other illegal stuff. The rest consisted of Bullion, BTC to Cash offers, Bitcoin miners.etc

either way, the point is that it was an underground black market.. for illegal activity. he might as well go to the police station with a line of coke still on his nose.

[Anon136]

Well the claim isn't against the FBI.  People seem to think the coins belong to the FBI.  Eventually the coins or the proceeds from when the coins are sold will become the property of the US Treasury.  However they aren't even the property of the US treasury yet.

After the trial is over (yes technically they can do it before but they won't for a lot of reasons) the DOJ (<- notice not FBI) will file for civil forfeiture.  It will be successful and then the DOJ will auction off the fofeited property and transfer the proceeds to the US Treasury.   They do this for billions of dollars in forfeited property every year so it isn't anything unprecedented, although this is probably the first case involving Bitcoins.

Part of that process will be a public claim period.  You have the ability to file a claim (under penalty of perjury) that the assets confiscated are owned partly by you, and that they were not the proceeds of a criminal enterprise.

If you succeed the court would return the wrongly frozen assets back to you.  I don't think I have to point out how much of an uphill battle that will be and how much the three letter agencies will turn over every aspect of your life to see if there is fire where there is smoke but it is your right as part of due diligence.  However I should warn you to get some realistic expectations.  The timeline is measured in years (sometimes decades).  I had funds frozen as part of legal action against Full Tilt Poker, that was over two and a half years ago, AFAIK to date not a single penny of player funds have been returned.

it might be worth it. imagine getting it in a decade and bitcoins are worth 100,000 each

[jballs]

Half of me is saying "Do it". I'm most interested in proving in a court you own some bitcoins.
The other half is saying , "Nope" for obvious reason. I'm sure they have some felonies for which they haven't found the criminal you yet.

And that is why I'm wavering....

I guess I'm genuinely interested in the legal aspects of this.  Given the Eric Holder/complete lawlessness issue, it really should be in a court room rather than the administrative divisions.  But here's the general scenario as I see it:

Marketplace ABC has trade accounts with X number persons.  Not disputable X/2 of those were engaged in activities illegal in their jurisdiction.  Others were curious about the site and may have placed minor amounts of coin there in 2010/2011.  Market changes caused those small amounts to become fortunes.

FBI takes said trade accounts....do they have to pay some or all of the trade account funds back?

Say they confiscated funds from an individual in Colorado who had bought marihuana on Silk Road from another individual in Colorado, said purchase being legal in Colorado (he might have bought from an unauthorized/unlicensed source, but that would be a state not a federal problem).  

I'm smelling a class action suit here....but what do I know, maybe the current social/political environment is so oppressive and totalitarian that everyone just sits in the corner shaking in fear.

Obviously a lot of people have standing to sue.

That. And it is entirely warranted fear. You are taking two areas where the gov has demonstrated it will act above anyreasonable interpretation of the law and combining them. Illegal use of a computer (see Aaron Swarz, rip) and the war on drugs (#winning for 42 consecutive years).

You are confusing some sense of justice with the US legal system. The DEA has arrested and convicted airplanes, on suspicion of having been used for trafficking at some point in their lives. They have confiscated cash upon suspicion that it was drug money because only drug dealers carry cash.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/struggling-minnesota-waitress-sues-police-seize-12000-tip/story?id=16074433

That's just the first one that came up on google. There's thousand just like it.

So you can sue, and hope they don't example you by charging you with frequenting, attempted money laundering, tax evasion, computer fraud/abuse, aiding and abetting terrorists (piracy, ya know), or any other stupid thing they can conjure up. Which is endless. Asset forfeiture is the least of your potential problems, your criminal defense would cost a lot more than you are walking away from.

But if you want to be a martyr I will give you my utmost respect and even send you letters in prison. It isn't about the right thing, at this point. It's about choosing who to pick a fight with and when, and knowing when you will be crushed regardless of justice. I would not pick this fight.


------
 
Edit- imagine if they lined you up with a judge whose only internet experience consisted of an email account, drudgereport, and maybe a facebook page that he/she has never really figured out how to use.

They get... "defendant converted dollars to an encrypted currency used predominantly for illicit purposes and smuggling via the internet. Defendant then transferred a substantial amount of encrypted currency (over $30,000 worth) to an encrypted website, accessible only through a sophisticated surreptitious browser designed to conceal online activities, most commonly used by pedophiles and terrorists. Defendant delivered these encrypted funds anonymously, with full knowledge it would be received by persons engaged in wanton criminal activity, and defendant has no stated legitimate purpose for doing business in this manner..."

Good luck explaining to your computer illiterate judge that you just wanted to understand how the platform worked, you didn't know this, you didn't know that, you didn't think it was that much money...judges love that shit. 30 years, maybe a last minute plea bargain to 5-7 if you are squeeky clean.


------
Final edit, I promise. You need to read this to understand what you are dealing with. The final sentencing guideline was 35 years in a federal prison after he refuse a plea bargain.

So you understand the reality before you read this. JSTOR is academic journals. They are freely available to download for anybody on the MIT campus. Their terms of service had set some arbitrary limit on the total number of downloads, but it was a large number. Aaron left his laptop on campus set to auto download all the academic journals on JSTOR, allegedly to take them and make them freely available to people off campus as well. The public could buy any of these papers for a couple bucks via the JSTOR website, or go to the MIT campus and download them for free also.

With that understanding of the "crime", here is the indictment

http://web.mit.edu/bitbucket/Swartz,%20Aaron%20Indictment.pdf

now imagine Silk Road...

Actually, none of that is relevant to the problem.  It's all true, but it misses the legal issues.

Suppose you were some big time gangster running a bank, and the FBI shut you down.  Some of your customers were shady, some were not.   But their money is theirs.  Now assume that again you are a big time gangster, but you have a business where you have a large accounts payable.  You owe a thousand people fair amounts but the money you have is yours.  They shut you down and take your money, those thousand people are out of luck.

The former situation is closer to this one than the latter.  But you've raised an interesting point; namely, that in a US bank failure you may not get your money back if the FDIC doesn't do their job of protecting the innocent, in a bitcoin exchange or business failure you may not get your coin back because the FBI persecutes the innocent.

Actually all of that is relevant to the problem. Swartz violated a terms of service agreement and downloaded more free documents than the site's terms allowed a user to do all at once. If Swartz had simply downloaded them manually one at a time, no violation would have occurred under any interpretation of the law. By speeding up the process (he never distributed the docs he downloaded, the allegation was intent to distribute). Despite all docs being free to download on campus, he was hit with all the charges in the indictment. None of them are reasonable. Wire fraud? Aiding and abetting...what? 35 years!

It's relevant because that case is the benchmark for the level of insanity that the legal system can operate when it comes to 'computer crimes'. Throw in drugs, and all the leeway given to prosecute drug crimes, possible organized crime and money laundering involvement...like I said it's not about right/wrong or legal/illegal. It is that none of the charges really fit the crime, and the punishment certainly did not fit the alleged crimes. But instead of a prosecutor acknowledging that, or a judge dismissing it, or a state or federal senator standing up for his rights, or a media fury, he was ordered to stand trial. For a terms of service violation.

For a closer case as far as the sirlk road specifics,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-gold#Criminal_prosecution

Again rewriting the laws to suit a prosecution, is the only relevant consideration for a potential defendant, if you view it as a sort of Pascal's Wager on a legal scale.

[SaltySpitoon]

Actually, after thinking about it again, you may have a claim. I was just thinking about how I purchased some sunglasses, a fake rolex (as a gag gift) and a chainsaw off of the Silk Road, nothing illegal there. The argument that it is an illegal marketplace kind of reminds me of a flea market. You can find drugs and stolen goods at a flea market, however you don't have your money confiscated for shopping there, I guess unless you are partaking in knowingly buying stolen goods or drugs.

The question is, if you can prove you didn't use the SilkRoad for nefarious purposes, would you be able to get your coins back?

Why doesn't the Bitcoin Community have more lawyers?

[darkmule]

I'm curios about the price you're willing to risk finding out that you're a Mexican drug lord that has shipped thousands of kilos of narcotics via SR:).

Hmm... Mexican drug lords are not that intelligent. Most of the drug vendors in SR were from Canada and the EU (especially Netherlands and Germany), in addition to those in the US.

Really?  You don't think the leaders of groups like the Zetas or the Sinoloa or Juarez cartels are intelligent?  Yet they somehow manage to prosper and control multi-billion dollar industries?  That's bullshit.

The Zetas actually managed to create their own alternative cell tower network to have completely off-the-grid communication.  Is that stupid?  The fact is they've succeeded because they are, in fact, very resourceful and their leaders are intelligent.  They did this at least in part by kidnapping the tech geeks capable of setting it up, forcing them to do it and then disposing of their bodies.

Now, they certainly act non-optimally in doing things in this manner.  Seems to me you could find some bad geeks and just compensate them royally and ensure their loyalty and that way, you wouldn't have to kidnap someone else just to maintain the network your now-murdered geeks put together.

But the idea that Mexican (and other Middle and South American) drug cartels are not intelligent enough to use something like Bitcoin if they see it to their advantage is ridiculous.  If they decided to do it, they'd either figure it out themselves or hire or kidnap some geek to tell them how to do it or manage it for them.

It is inevitable that lawless actors will flock to Bitcoin.  Yes, some will be chaotic evil.  Some will be chaotic good, to pick a geek trope to end a post about geeks and Mexican drug cartels.

[Spendulus]

Actually, after thinking about it again, you may have a claim. I was just thinking about how I purchased some sunglasses, a fake rolex (as a gag gift) and a chainsaw off of the Silk Road, nothing illegal there. The argument that it is an illegal marketplace kind of reminds me of a flea market. You can find drugs and stolen goods at a flea market, however you don't have your money confiscated for shopping there, I guess unless you are partaking in knowingly buying stolen goods or drugs.

The question is, if you can prove you didn't use the SilkRoad for nefarious purposes, would you be able to get your coins back?
....

I don't even think that's correct.  That's presumption of guilt and no due process.

[beetcoin]

Actually, after thinking about it again, you may have a claim. I was just thinking about how I purchased some sunglasses, a fake rolex (as a gag gift) and a chainsaw off of the Silk Road, nothing illegal there. The argument that it is an illegal marketplace kind of reminds me of a flea market. You can find drugs and stolen goods at a flea market, however you don't have your money confiscated for shopping there, I guess unless you are partaking in knowingly buying stolen goods or drugs.

The question is, if you can prove you didn't use the SilkRoad for nefarious purposes, would you be able to get your coins back?
....

I don't even think that's correct.  That's presumption of guilt and no due process.

yeah i don't know how one would be able to prove that they were not using SR for illegal activity. even if you bought something legal, that does not prove your innocence.

[Spendulus]

.....
It's relevant because that case is the benchmark for the level of insanity that the legal system can operate when it comes to 'computer crimes'. Throw in drugs, and all the leeway given to prosecute drug crimes, possible organized crime and money laundering involvement...like I said it's not about right/wrong or legal/illegal. It is that none of the charges really fit the crime, and the punishment certainly did not fit the alleged crimes. But instead of a prosecutor acknowledging that, or a judge dismissing it, or a state or federal senator standing up for his rights, or a media fury, he was ordered to stand trial. For a terms of service violation.

For a closer case as far as the sirlk road specifics,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-gold#Criminal_prosecution

Again rewriting the laws to suit a prosecution, is the only relevant consideration for a potential defendant, if you view it as a sort of Pascal's Wager on a legal scale.

No, it's not relevant.  You are discussing law as applied by a district attorney.

Here we are discussing law as applied by citizens (subjects) seeking redress from government injustice.

Actually, after thinking about it again, you may have a claim. I was just thinking about how I purchased some sunglasses, a fake rolex (as a gag gift) and a chainsaw off of the Silk Road, nothing illegal there. The argument that it is an illegal marketplace kind of reminds me of a flea market. You can find drugs and stolen goods at a flea market, however you don't have your money confiscated for shopping there, I guess unless you are partaking in knowingly buying stolen goods or drugs.

The question is, if you can prove you didn't use the SilkRoad for nefarious purposes, would you be able to get your coins back?
....

I don't even think that's correct.  That's presumption of guilt and no due process.

yeah i don't know how one would be able to prove that they were not using SR for illegal activity. even if you bought something legal, that does not prove your innocence.

They would probably have an arguable case if say a known drug dealer with a history of convictions had a large amount of money on silk road, but had not done anything with it.

But we are not talking about that.

[jballs]

.....
It's relevant because that case is the benchmark for the level of insanity that the legal system can operate when it comes to 'computer crimes'. Throw in drugs, and all the leeway given to prosecute drug crimes, possible organized crime and money laundering involvement...like I said it's not about right/wrong or legal/illegal. It is that none of the charges really fit the crime, and the punishment certainly did not fit the alleged crimes. But instead of a prosecutor acknowledging that, or a judge dismissing it, or a state or federal senator standing up for his rights, or a media fury, he was ordered to stand trial. For a terms of service violation.

For a closer case as far as the sirlk road specifics,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-gold#Criminal_prosecution

Again rewriting the laws to suit a prosecution, is the only relevant consideration for a potential defendant, if you view it as a sort of Pascal's Wager on a legal scale.

No, it's not relevant.  You are discussing law as applied by a district attorney.

Here we are discussing law as applied by citizens (subjects) seeking redress from government injustice.

Actually, after thinking about it again, you may have a claim. I was just thinking about how I purchased some sunglasses, a fake rolex (as a gag gift) and a chainsaw off of the Silk Road, nothing illegal there. The argument that it is an illegal marketplace kind of reminds me of a flea market. You can find drugs and stolen goods at a flea market, however you don't have your money confiscated for shopping there, I guess unless you are partaking in knowingly buying stolen goods or drugs.

The question is, if you can prove you didn't use the SilkRoad for nefarious purposes, would you be able to get your coins back?
....

I don't even think that's correct.  That's presumption of guilt and no due process.

yeah i don't know how one would be able to prove that they were not using SR for illegal activity. even if you bought something legal, that does not prove your innocence.

They would probably have an arguable case if say a known drug dealer with a history of convictions had a large amount of money on silk road, but had not done anything with it.

But we are not talking about that.

I gather you haven't read this whole thread? I am discussing it from the point of view of a district attorney, because the district attorney (or more likely the AG in this case) will be filing the criminal charges against SR users, and those suing for return of property will be first in line to be charged.

For the fifth time, this has nothing to do with right or wrong, or valid punishments for "crimes". If it did, Aaron Swartz would have maybe been on the hook for community service or been banned from the MIT campus. Instead he killed himself rather than fight a multi-million dollar criminal defense or plea bargain for federal prison time.

I am saying forget your armchair lawyer delusions about "your rights" and "due process" and all the imaginary trappings of a justice system. They don't exist anymore, not when it comes to cyber crimes and certainly not cyber crimes affiliated with drug crimes and possible 'other' frowned upon crimes.

See Hedges vs. Obama for where we the people stand. It is an important guidepost. Also, it is probably the best thing to do at this point, people need to file civil suits against the government and force them to defend the stripping of rights, so there is precedence that is not set in a criminal court that has already proven biased against search and seizure, probable cause, due process, scope of authority, etc. Hedges v Obama failed for the most part, but it did bring light to the problem, and may find support in a future less prejudiced courtroom.

[Spendulus]

.....
It's relevant because that case is the benchmark for the level of insanity that the legal system can operate when it comes to 'computer crimes'. Throw in drugs, and all the leeway given to prosecute drug crimes, possible organized crime and money laundering involvement...like I said it's not about right/wrong or legal/illegal. It is that none of the charges really fit the crime, and the punishment certainly did not fit the alleged crimes. But instead of a prosecutor acknowledging that, or a judge dismissing it, or a state or federal senator standing up for his rights, or a media fury, he was ordered to stand trial. For a terms of service violation.

For a closer case as far as the sirlk road specifics,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-gold#Criminal_prosecution

Again rewriting the laws to suit a prosecution, is the only relevant consideration for a potential defendant, if you view it as a sort of Pascal's Wager on a legal scale.

No, it's not relevant.  You are discussing law as applied by a district attorney.

Here we are discussing law as applied by citizens (subjects) seeking redress from government injustice.

Actually, after thinking about it again, you may have a claim. I was just thinking about how I purchased some sunglasses, a fake rolex (as a gag gift) and a chainsaw off of the Silk Road, nothing illegal there. The argument that it is an illegal marketplace kind of reminds me of a flea market. You can find drugs and stolen goods at a flea market, however you don't have your money confiscated for shopping there, I guess unless you are partaking in knowingly buying stolen goods or drugs.

The question is, if you can prove you didn't use the SilkRoad for nefarious purposes, would you be able to get your coins back?
....

I don't even think that's correct.  That's presumption of guilt and no due process.

yeah i don't know how one would be able to prove that they were not using SR for illegal activity. even if you bought something legal, that does not prove your innocence.

They would probably have an arguable case if say a known drug dealer with a history of convictions had a large amount of money on silk road, but had not done anything with it.

But we are not talking about that.

I gather you haven't read this whole thread? I am discussing it from the point of view of a district attorney, because the district attorney (or more likely the AG in this case) will be filing the criminal charges against SR users, and those suing for return of property will be first in line to be charged.....
See Hedges vs. Obama .....

Yes, I have read the whole thread.  I guess you don't understand where I'm coming from.  I agree with your concerns about the onset of totalitarian operations and the loss of the rule of law in the Justice department.  However, those are not related to what happens when a case is filed in a situation as has been described here. 

First, there are 'administrative remedies' which might be required to be pursued.   This is where you might have some valid concern about retaliatory prosecution of the innocent.  Second, assuming some time had past and no positive results had been achieved in those processes, the class action lawsuit might be filed.  That would be to compel an action, such as here to return the money as the statutes say is possible.  What that would do is take the action out of the administrative justice nonsense and put it in a courtroom.

You can speculate that the administrative agency would take retaliatory action, sure.  But once the matter was in the hands of a judge they wouldn't look very good if they did that, and there tend to be consequences.  Plus, they have other things to do than harass silkroad people. 

[darkmule]

I gather you haven't read this whole thread? I am discussing it from the point of view of a district attorney, because the district attorney (or more likely the AG in this case) will be filing the criminal charges against SR users, and those suing for return of property will be first in line to be charged.

If they didn't even have enough evidence to win a forfeiture action, how the hell could they successfully prosecute a criminal case?

I think the more important issue as to why it might be foolish to file a challenge to the forfeiture is that fee shifting might not be available and the cost of actually pursuing the action might be higher than the value of the seized property.

Obviously, anyone considering such an action should consult an attorney or attorneys with civil and criminal experience and make damn sure they don't have any criminal liability.  One (semi-creative) argument a prosecutor could make is that simply by depositing money on a site the main purpose of which was criminal activity, one is aiding and abetting the criminal enterprise by increasing its liquidity.

I don't see why they'd bother retaliating solely because one filed with the administrative process they set up to handle exactly this kind of situation.  That's why it's there.  Now, if by losing your anonymity, you are therefore exposed to criminal liability, that's another issue, and one nobody should be discussing here, but in private with an attorney.  Nobody could give a valid opinion on potential liability without the specific facts of the individual's situation, which they shouldn't be talking about in public.

[Spendulus]

I gather you haven't read this whole thread? I am discussing it from the point of view of a district attorney, because the district attorney (or more likely the AG in this case) will be filing the criminal charges against SR users, and those suing for return of property will be first in line to be charged.

If they didn't even have enough evidence to win a forfeiture action, how the hell could they successfully prosecute a criminal case?

I think the more important issue as to why it might be foolish to file a challenge to the forfeiture is that fee shifting might not be available and the cost of actually pursuing the action might be higher than the value of the seized property.

Obviously, anyone considering such an action should consult an attorney or attorneys with civil and criminal experience and make damn sure they don't have any criminal liability.  One (semi-creative) argument a prosecutor could make is that simply by depositing money on a site the main purpose of which was criminal activity, one is aiding and abetting the criminal enterprise by increasing its liquidity.

I don't see why they'd bother retaliating solely because one filed with the administrative process they set up to handle exactly this kind of situation.  That's why it's there.  Now, if by losing your anonymity, you are therefore exposed to criminal liability, that's another issue, and one nobody should be discussing here, but in private with an attorney.  Nobody could give a valid opinion on potential liability without the specific facts of the individual's situation, which they shouldn't be talking about in public.

Well, ya.  Unless they didn't have any liability from doing so (and do not forget income tax and/or attempts to evade it! in evaluating that!)

I'll tell you what the administrative agencies should do...it would be to take the attitude that "we did really good here, ran a few honey pots and pulled in a whole crew of under-current-defined-law-"wrongdoers" and raked in a bunch of illegally gotten cash.  Say what?  Say there was a lot of honest money there?  Hey, take it back, no problem".

Well...that's what they SHOULD DO....

ROFL....

[other_side]

Anyone else thinking about this?  Anyone here have any experience with such a claim?

I think you should definitely move forward with lawsuit. But if you find pro bono lawyer or such organization like ACLU helps you. There are several other that can help.
At least such lawsuit will be part of history and could be sited as precedent. 

[Spendulus]

Anyone else thinking about this?  Anyone here have any experience with such a claim?

I think you should definitely move forward with lawsuit. But if you find pro bono lawyer or such organization like ACLU helps you. There are several other that can help.
At least such lawsuit will be part of history and could be sited as precedent. 

I have a feeling that this is true and could be an important precedent.  But it would be nice to hear it discussed from a very experienced constitutional attorney.

[jballs]

Anyone else thinking about this?  Anyone here have any experience with such a claim?

I think you should definitely move forward with lawsuit. But if you find pro bono lawyer or such organization like ACLU helps you. There are several other that can help.
At least such lawsuit will be part of history and could be sited as precedent. 

I have a feeling that this is true and could be an important precedent.  But it would be nice to hear it discussed from a very experienced constitutional attorney.

Only way I would take this on is if I could relocate myself and all my assets to a country without an extradition treaty, and have my attorney file the suit for me.

Then if it's all cool and a fair hearing you can come home, if they come down on you you're not another digital martyr in a cage.

Good luck whatever you decide.