CEO OF BITCOIN EXCHANGE ARRESTED

[tvbcof]

Actually it is.  It is called structuring. ...

I have actually endeavored to make sure that some of my transactions exceed $10k in order to trigger alerts.  This for the sole reason of trying to ensure that I am not accused of 'structuring', and at times it has been an inconvenience.

I suppose that in an ironic sort of a way, even trying to make sure I trigger alerts could be considered 'structuring.'

[1714920141]

1714920141

[1714920141]

1714920141

[1714920141]

1714920141

[1714920141]

1714920141

[1714920141]

1714920141

[tinus42]

Kid can't even take the time to shave, and he wants to be a dirty money laundering kingpin.  What a joke.

He is a hassidic Jew. They are always a bit hairy.

[tvbcof]

He was bailed out anyhow, nuff' said.

Yup.  They're pretty sure he's going to talk like a parrot.  I'll confidently predict he'll never set foot in a hodling area again.

[Sportsclips]

Bharara will go to any length in terms of aggressive and evil as long as it serves his career, from the looks of this

Let's check the facts:

-BTC is not illegal
-Silkroad per se was not illegal, it was a site where legal and illegal stuff was traded
-BTCKing sold legal bitcoins to users of a legal site. Whether BTCKing did comply with regulations when he sold a maximum of $1000 worth of BTC to anonymous counterparties, I don't know. Maybe BTCKing should have registered as a money transmitter? Maybe that part was not even clear in 2012? Hard to tell.
-Bitinstand obviously sold BTC to BTCKing, but not anonymously. This would be like bank A doing business with bank B. Bank A does not comply with regulations or has some customers that use cash withdrawn at their ATMs that are located in bad areas, for illegal purposes, and bank B is made responsible because they delivered the cash to fill these ATMs. The prosecutors would claim that bank B must have known that a lot of cash in these areas is used to buy drugs etc. Insane? Not from the viewpoint of insane minds.
-Advice from Bitinstant to BTCKing to split cash deposits is not illegal itself, in fact thousands of people get their bank accounts blocked for legal things like buying bitcoins. Advising someone to avoid certain things that are legal but also red flags, to avoid unnecessary discussions or account closures, is also not illegal.

In such a world, no bank could do business with another, since anyone could be arrested anytime for someone else's mistakes.

Funny how America complains to Russia about cases like Chodorkowski, but use the same twisted logic themselves all the time 

Now all Bharara needs to do, is attack Mtgox for trading with Bitinstant and, of course, all banks that have done business with Mtgox. Finally troops have to be sent to Japan because the Japanese central bank has "knowingly" sent funds to these banks, "making good profits along the way". Perhaps there are some intermediary banks to attack as well? What a huge pile of crap.

Let's see how this develops.

This is the same prosecutor who took down the poker sites on black friday.  His sole goal is to make the headlines in major cases involving money.

[darkmule]

This is the same prosecutor who took down the poker sites on black friday.  His sole goal is to make the headlines in major cases involving money.

While I am no fan of that action, which personally cost me a lot of money (not lost on the sites but income I would have made), I'll note one of those sites was Full Tilt Poker, which turned out to be operating as little better than a Ponzi scam.  The fact is that he is a prosecutor, and it is his job to prosecute offenses against federal law.  I assume he's actually in favor of the laws he prosecutes, but it would be completely irrelevant.

I sometimes get annoyed when the same kind of people who would vociferously object to "judicial activism" and "judge-made law" nonetheless object to prosecutors doing their job and prosecuting violations of laws they had nothing whatsoever to do with passing into law.  Who does that?  The people we elect to Congress.

No purpose is served by pretending everyone on the other side of this is some kind of incompetent buffoon or cartoonish villain.  It is exactly that kind of short-sighted arrogance that has led DPR and now Shrem by the nose into a deep pile of shit.

Not saying you're responsible of this, but I've certainly seen a lot of it on this and other threads.

[kik1977]

I would rather he just OD'd and took himself out of the gene pool than justify all the disgusting human behavior that prohibition creates.

You will pay the price for your comments.

Take it personal if you want I have plenty of drug addict relatives myself, hell we all do don't we?

No, I don't. And anyway this doesn't give you the right to offend other people's feeling. Ignore list.

Really? No alcoholics, no cigarette addicts (that one is brutal), no prescription drug users (you know for the "fibromyalgia"), no morbidly obese who can't stay out the buffet ot the fridge at 2am?

Maybe you're of the Amish online community. Fine, the rest of us have drug addict relatives, or are or have been addicts ourselves. You want to criminalize some addicts and turn them into a feedlot profit center and cheer on the jackbooted thugs kicking doors in, that offends me.

That my country would tolerate this for one second "because drugs m'kay" grossly offends me:

http://benswann.com/new-mexico-police-force-enemas-anal-cavity-searches-on-drivers-pulled-over-for-minor-violations/

That any country has to endure THIS because someone's little brother can't be spared the hazard of making his own fucking decisions in life-

http://bitterqueen.typepad.com/friends_of_ours/2013/08/beheaded-remains-of-thirteen-kidnapped-mexican-youths-found-in-mass-grave.html

This?

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2012/11/01/mexican-daily-nearly-60000-drug-war-deaths-under-calderon/

This offends me,  yes it does. If it does not offend you, may want to rethink your values. None of this is caused by drugs. It is caused by prohibition and the profits it generates.

No, sorry, atheist and not living in the US..and no, sorry, no drugs addicted (as far as I know, you never know..)..but that's not the point. I just hate when people in this forum starts offending others if they don't agree with their opinion.. it seems to me a stupid way of discussing, like saying to someone that his drug addicted brother would better die... But act as you wish!

[Sportsclips]

This is the same prosecutor who took down the poker sites on black friday.  His sole goal is to make the headlines in major cases involving money.

While I am no fan of that action, which personally cost me a lot of money (not lost on the sites but income I would have made), I'll note one of those sites was Full Tilt Poker, which turned out to be operating as little better than a Ponzi scam.  The fact is that he is a prosecutor, and it is his job to prosecute offenses against federal law.  I assume he's actually in favor of the laws he prosecutes, but it would be completely irrelevant.

I sometimes get annoyed when the same kind of people who would vociferously object to "judicial activism" and "judge-made law" nonetheless object to prosecutors doing their job and prosecuting violations of laws they had nothing whatsoever to do with passing into law.  Who does that?  The people we elect to Congress.

No purpose is served by pretending everyone on the other side of this is some kind of incompetent buffoon or cartoonish villain.  It is exactly that kind of short-sighted arrogance that has led DPR and now Shrem by the nose into a deep pile of shit.

Not saying you're responsible of this, but I've certainly seen a lot of it on this and other threads.

Oh, I agree, hes not an ignorant person, he's actually very bright.  And FTP was breaking the law and scamming their customers in a major way. 

My comment was just an observation that it seems he has an agenda to get involved in the biggest cases, and loves to have his name out there.  Which, does not bode well for financial felons, or anyone in his cross hairs.

[TheButterZone]

I sometimes get annoyed when the same kind of people who would vociferously object to "judicial activism" and "judge-made law" nonetheless object to prosecutors doing their job and prosecuting violations of laws they had nothing whatsoever to do with passing into law.  Who does that?  The people we elect to Congress.

I object to any government official violating their oath of office, where they swore to uphold the Constitution and the inherent human rights thereof. Judges, prosecutors, lawmakers, they all swear it, and it's rare to see them actually honor their oath over their entire career until retirement and not be expelled by totalitarians. A court upholding inherent human rights is not "judicial activism" or enacting "judge-made law", it is fulfilling its oath. Drug laws categorically violate human rights, as well as calling any exercise of economic liberty whatsoever "money laundering".

If you're going to be in government, be this guy:

[leopard2]

Actually it is.  It is called structuring. ...

I have actually endeavored to make sure that some of my transactions exceed $10k in order to trigger alerts.  This for the sole reason of trying to ensure that I am not accused of 'structuring', and at times it has been an inconvenience.

I suppose that in an ironic sort of a way, even trying to make sure I trigger alerts could be considered 'structuring.'

so if you don't comply you get fucked for that and if you comply it is called structuring and you get fucked also for intentionally not violating the rule.

AML legislation, honoring the memories Orwell, Stalin and Kafka all at the same time. Very versatile, much better than a Swiss army knife.

perfect for those regions where drones may not be used  to remove regime critics

[jballs]

I would rather he just OD'd and took himself out of the gene pool than justify all the disgusting human behavior that prohibition creates.

You will pay the price for your comments.

Take it personal if you want I have plenty of drug addict relatives myself, hell we all do don't we?

No, I don't. And anyway this doesn't give you the right to offend other people's feeling. Ignore list.

Really? No alcoholics, no cigarette addicts (that one is brutal), no prescription drug users (you know for the "fibromyalgia"), no morbidly obese who can't stay out the buffet ot the fridge at 2am?

Maybe you're of the Amish online community. Fine, the rest of us have drug addict relatives, or are or have been addicts ourselves. You want to criminalize some addicts and turn them into a feedlot profit center and cheer on the jackbooted thugs kicking doors in, that offends me.

That my country would tolerate this for one second "because drugs m'kay" grossly offends me:

http://benswann.com/new-mexico-police-force-enemas-anal-cavity-searches-on-drivers-pulled-over-for-minor-violations/

That any country has to endure THIS because someone's little brother can't be spared the hazard of making his own fucking decisions in life-

http://bitterqueen.typepad.com/friends_of_ours/2013/08/beheaded-remains-of-thirteen-kidnapped-mexican-youths-found-in-mass-grave.html

This?

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2012/11/01/mexican-daily-nearly-60000-drug-war-deaths-under-calderon/

This offends me,  yes it does. If it does not offend you, may want to rethink your values. None of this is caused by drugs. It is caused by prohibition and the profits it generates.

No, sorry, atheist and not living in the US..and no, sorry, no drugs addicted (as far as I know, you never know..)..but that's not the point. I just hate when people in this forum starts offending others if they don't agree with their opinion.. it seems to me a stupid way of discussing, like saying to someone that his drug addicted brother would better die... But act as you wish!

Well i dont know that dude or his brother so it is pretty irrelevant and entirely not personal. Of the 60,000 dead mexicans at last count, most are civilians. Many are children, all are caught in brutal contest for control of the drug trade. Would i rather some yankee kid make the choice to go buy drugs and get wasted and maybe addicted of his own volition than "protect him" from that bad decision and kill tens of thousands of innocent people who made no such poor decisions? Especially given the total inability to actually stop drug flows anyway?

Hell yes, if that offends you, i dont care. Go talk to a mexican family who had their kids beheaded and ask them about the moral eqiivalency.

[kik1977]

There is another thread on the topic here in the forum, with a poll asking "have you actually read the indictment?"..yes, no, just what it's said in the news. I guess (and hope) many people posting here haven't done it. Based on what is written in the indictment (and exclusively based on that), what he did is indeed a crime. You may disagree on whether the law is right or not (I in fact tend to disagree to some of the different US AML nuances, but it's irrelevant) but still, according to the indictment and according to the US law, that is a crime. Having said that, investigators are not perfect and maybe he wrote a lot of BS on the indictment. If so, he will be found not guilty.
But please stop saying BS if you a) just read the news headlines b) have no idea of what ML is.

[leopard2]

My best advice is don't provide advice for things you have not done legal research on.  Someone may believe you and end up in prison as a result.

This is a public forum ... people voice opinions that can be completely wrong of course ... maybe the forum should be moderated so only posts certified by a lawyer such as you, are published?  

There is a huge difference between a financial institution (be it bank or MSB) UNKNOWINGLY processing transactions which are related to a criminal enterprise and doing so in compliance with its own internal AML policies and in accordance with the requirements set by FinCEN.  It is a completely different thing for an entity to KNOWINGLY engage in those transactions, violate its own internal AML policies, assist the criminal client with bypassing AML procedures, and failing to report those transactions to FinCEN.

The complaint doesn't allege the former, it alleges the latter.  For the record I am not saying Charlie is guilty of anything, the complaint is only that a complaint and the allegations until proven are just allegations.  It is up to a jury to decide if the state's ALLEGED charges have merit.  However lets at least start the discussion on what was ACTUALLY alleged and not some fantasy scenario where the prosecution is merely charging him for selling some coin in full compliance with his company's AML program that someone unknown to him later used them in a crime.  That is just 100% BS.

Maybe you're right, but then Russia more honest and straightforward by just saying, anything related to BTC is potentially connected to terrorism money laundering or whatever and you may be in hot water for just dealing with it. Simply no one without superpowers could have no reasonable doubt that a buyer is not using it for that. AML is turning "innocent until proven guilty" upside down.

That is exactly why no US bank wants to deal with BTC businesses and close accounts when they hear the word.

[tinus42]

I sometimes get annoyed when the same kind of people who would vociferously object to "judicial activism" and "judge-made law" nonetheless object to prosecutors doing their job and prosecuting violations of laws they had nothing whatsoever to do with passing into law.  Who does that?  The people we elect to Congress.

I object to any government official violating their oath of office, where they swore to uphold the Constitution and the inherent human rights thereof. Judges, prosecutors, lawmakers, they all swear it, and it's rare to see them actually honor their oath over their entire career until retirement and not be expelled by totalitarians. A court upholding inherent human rights is not "judicial activism" or enacting "judge-made law", it is fulfilling its oath. Drug laws categorically violate human rights, as well as calling any exercise of economic liberty whatsoever "money laundering".

If you're going to be in government, be this guy:

That guy was probably imprisoned or even executed right after this photo was published.

[LikeTurgenev]

 
This info is scary, what the hek in the world they arrested such a nice guy

[TheButterZone]

That guy was probably imprisoned or even executed right after this photo was published.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Landmesser

[leopard2]

HE WAS NOT IN COMPLIANCE (some of the others got busted for structuring; especially if they were in the wrong party)

[jballs]

HE WAS NOT IN COMPLIANCE (some of the others got busted for structuring; especially if they were in the wrong party)

You can't be in compliance. See kafka. All the Fincen/Patriot Act/Fatca legislation is intended to declare anyone a criminal  as they see fit. This is the fundamental failure to communicate here. These laws are not constitutional, or if they are then we have abandoned the premise of the constitution.

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

They will simply find a reason if they want to take you down. The "law" provides for this and is therefore no longer a law but a bludgeoning tool for those above the law to apply as they wish.

[lolipop]

Nothing to do with bitcoin price !

[erkki12]

Seems like government instances are trying to make a scapegoat for the silkroad case and close it then. Would be very logical to have a "main" villain whom the press could blame.

It seems, with the knowledge that the press release gives, to be pretty unfair of a procedure, but what can you do, a justice system doesn't have to be just.

[tvbcof]

Turns out that this is more serious than I thought.  Unbeknownst to most of us, Shrem was 'The CEO of Bitcoin'!

I only know this because of the wonderful reporting here:

  http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=227147

One sure can miss out on a lot by not following the mainstream news.