MTGOX SUBPOENAED BY US PROSECUTOR

[anth0ny]

Also, I think there must be a pending suit in a civil matter or charges filed in a criminal matter before a subpoena can be issued (the suit or charges are against someone one else, you don't get subpoenaed to testify in a case in which you're already a party).

No, that's completely incorrect.

[mgburks77]

As they break everyone associated with SR they will follow this information up the chain to the big fish.

[JudgeHearst]

Fair enough.  Kindly show me the rule from the federal rules of civil procedure.

In cases that I'm in, if the opposing party won't come to a deposition or hearing, I file a motion to compel - not a subpoena.  However, if I need to depose a non-party, I get a subpoena to ensure they'll come testify or produce documents. Maybe its different where you practice.

[anth0ny]

Fair enough.  Kindly show me the rule from the federal rules of civil procedure.

To show, what exactly? You agree that grand juries issue subpoenas before a person is charged, right? You agree that Congress issues subpoenas before a person is charged, right?

You know about how grand juries can force people to testify against themselves (before the grand jury) by giving them use immunity, right?

You claim to have graduated from a law school in the United States, right?

In cases that I'm in, if the opposing party won't come to a deposition or hearing, I file a motion to compel - not a subpoena.  However, if I need to depose a non-party, I get a subpoena to ensure they'll come testify or produce documents. Maybe its different where you practice.

In this case we're talking about U.S. federal law, no?

(I guess that assumes the news got it right, that it was the U.S., issuing a subpoena to Mt. Gox. It's certainly possible that the reporter got the details wrong, and the subpoena came from a state, and/or was issued to an individual.)

[eldentyrell]

pricks want to know everyone who's ever traded on gox.

Yep.  This is what AML/KYC is really all about.

[JudgeHearst]

Fair enough.  Kindly show me the rule from the federal rules of civil procedure.

To show, what exactly? You agree that grand juries issue subpoenas before a person is charged, right? You agree that Congress issues subpoenas before a person is charged, right?

You claim to have graduated from a law school in the United States, right?

In cases that I'm in, if the opposing party won't come to a deposition or hearing, I file a motion to compel - not a subpoena.  However, if I need to depose a non-party, I get a subpoena to ensure they'll come testify or produce documents. Maybe its different where you practice.

In this case we're talking about U.S. federal law, no?

(I guess that assumes the news got it right, that it was the U.S., issuing a subpoena to Mt. Gox. It's certainly possible that the reporter got the details wrong, and the subpoena came from a state, and/or was issued to an individual.)

I think grand juries are designed to indict suspects on preliminary evidence. If an indictment results, a warrant for arrest is issued.  Congress would not be involved in this matter if a US Attorney is involved (i.e., Dept. of Justice =/= Legislature).

[anth0ny]

I think grand juries are designed to indict suspects on preliminary evidence. If an indictment results, a warrant for arrest is issued.  Congress would not be involved in this matter if a US Attorney is involved (i.e., Dept. of Justice =/= Legislature).

OK. But do you agree that "there must be a pending suit in a civil matter or charges filed in a criminal matter before a subpoena can be issued" is completely incorrect?

Subpoenas often come before someone is charged with a crime.

---

To tie this back to the thread, it's certainly possible that the US sent Mt. Gox a subpoena because they were investigating possible wrongdoing, and when the attorney working for Mt. Gox looked into things to try to respond, they came to the realization of "oh shit, Gox doesn't actually have any money!" The investigation leading to the subpoena may or may not have been related to the lack of money, in such a (hypothetical) scenario.

Again, the only part that is really hard to imagine is that these problems were caused solely by transaction malleability and that no one at Gox knew about them until very recently. Surely if Gox really did lose hundreds of thousands of BTC due to transaction malleability, someone on the inside knew about it and/or was involved in cooking the books.

[JudgeHearst]

I think grand juries are designed to indict suspects on preliminary evidence. If an indictment results, a warrant for arrest is issued.  Congress would not be involved in this matter if a US Attorney is involved (i.e., Dept. of Justice =/= Legislature).

OK. But do you agree that "there must be a pending suit in a civil matter or charges filed in a criminal matter before a subpoena can be issued" is completely incorrect?

Subpoenas often come before someone is charged with a crime.

---

To tie this back to the thread, it's certainly possible that the US sent Mt. Gox a subpoena because they were investigating possible wrongdoing, and when the attorney working for Mt. Gox looked into things to try to respond, they came to the realization of "oh shit, Gox doesn't actually have any money!" The investigation leading to the subpoena may or may not have been related to the lack of money, in such a (hypothetical) scenario.

No, I do not agree.

I will graciously concede the argument and admit that I'm wrong if you can show me a rule of court procedure that shows me I'm wrong (no ill-will or ego, here).  Until then, I'm going to go with what I know from my own experience as an attorney who practices a fair amount of civil litigation.  

I'm also going to go with this theory: there is a federal criminal case pending where the Defendant (XXX) engaged in a fair amount of trading at Mt. Gox and the prosecutors want to discover information related to those trades for their case against XXX. 

[anth0ny]

I think grand juries are designed to indict suspects on preliminary evidence. If an indictment results, a warrant for arrest is issued.  Congress would not be involved in this matter if a US Attorney is involved (i.e., Dept. of Justice =/= Legislature).

OK. But do you agree that "there must be a pending suit in a civil matter or charges filed in a criminal matter before a subpoena can be issued" is completely incorrect?

No, I do not agree.

I will graciously concede the argument and admit that I'm wrong if you can show me a rule of court procedure that shows me I'm wrong (no ill-will or ego, here).  Until then, I'm going to go with what I know from my own experience as an attorney who practices a fair amount of civil litigation. 

Your experience practising civil litigation won't give you much insight into how grand juries work. But presumably you went to law school at some point...

[JudgeHearst]

Great argument.

[anth0ny]

I'm also going to go with this theory: there is a federal criminal case pending where the Defendant (XXX) engaged in a fair amount of trading at Mt. Gox and the prosecutors want to discover information related to those trades for their case against XXX. 

I'd venture a guess that this is true.

[anth0ny]

Great argument.

Argument? I'm done arguing. If I wanted to read "prove it" over and over again I could write a bot to do that. I could even call it JudgeEliza and have it impersonate a judge.

It's clear to me that either you have no idea how grand juries work, or you just refuse to admit that you were wrong with the "charges filed in a criminal matter before a subpoena" comment.

[hostmaster]

erm how can the US subpoena a company based in japan? 

it's very effective. US laws works in all countries.

[CrashX]

Japan wont even think about it, His not even Japanese 
 

[traderCJ]

It's clear to me that either you have no idea how grand juries work, or you just refuse to admit that you were wrong with the "charges filed in a criminal matter before a subpoena" comment.

What is your legal background?

[CrashX]

I think grand juries are designed to indict suspects on preliminary evidence. If an indictment results, a warrant for arrest is issued.  Congress would not be involved in this matter if a US Attorney is involved (i.e., Dept. of Justice =/= Legislature).

OK. But do you agree that "there must be a pending suit in a civil matter or charges filed in a criminal matter before a subpoena can be issued" is completely incorrect?

Subpoenas often come before someone is charged with a crime.

---

To tie this back to the thread, it's certainly possible that the US sent Mt. Gox a subpoena because they were investigating possible wrongdoing, and when the attorney working for Mt. Gox looked into things to try to respond, they came to the realization of "oh shit, Gox doesn't actually have any money!" The investigation leading to the subpoena may or may not have been related to the lack of money, in such a (hypothetical) scenario.

No, I do not agree.

I will graciously concede the argument and admit that I'm wrong if you can show me a rule of court procedure that shows me I'm wrong (no ill-will or ego, here).  Until then, I'm going to go with what I know from my own experience as an attorney who practices a fair amount of civil litigation.  

I'm also going to go with this theory: there is a federal criminal case pending where the Defendant (XXX) engaged in a fair amount of trading at Mt. Gox and the prosecutors want to discover information related to those trades for their case against XXX. 

I'm not an OFFICIAL Attorney but been sue a few times, I always go Pro-Se. I'm actually being sue at this moment and also suing Cox, for trolling my connection.

[JudgeHearst]

Here's a decent summary for criminal procedure at the federal level (from the Minnesota US Attorney's office):

http://www.justice.gov/usao/mn/criminal_proc.html  

Anth0ny, you're right, civil litigation and criminal law are different.  But, subpoenas are common to both, but I suppose they can be used differently.

EDIT: I conducted a little research on this issue. Two things: we've only heard about a "subpoena," not a "Grand Jury Subpoena." I believe persons suspected of a crime and that are being investigated for said crime may need a Grand Jury Subpoena to be compelled to testify at a hearing. Grand Jury Subpoenas of a target in an investigation require the approval of the grand jury itself as well as a US Attorney or AG.  

From the US Attorney's Criminal Resource Manual (Chapter on Grand Juries, Section Subpoenaing a Target of an Investigation): "If a voluntary appearance cannot be obtained, the target should be subpoenaed only after the grand jury and the United States Attorney or the responsible Assistant Attorney General have approved the subpoena."  

Here, it sounds like MK or Gox got served with a regular subpoena (but I guess we don't really know). If that's the case, I think my initial point still stands - either there are charges against them or its for somebody else's case. But even if the subpoena is a Grand Jury Subpoena where MK or Gox are the targets, there would have been some kind of proceeding first to secure the subpoena since the Grand Jury's approval is required. In that case, my statement about "charges" being a requirement is not accurate.  

[anth0ny]

It's clear to me that either you have no idea how grand juries work, or you just refuse to admit that you were wrong with the "charges filed in a criminal matter before a subpoena" comment.

What is your legal background?

I'm not a lawyer.

[anth0ny]

Two things: we've only heard about a "subpoena," not a "Grand Jury Subpoena."

And we've heard that Mark Karpeles is the CEO of "Bitcoin". I wouldn't read too much into the exact phrasing of the news media.

Here, it sounds like MK or Gox got served with a regular subpoena (but I guess we don't really know).

I'd say we don't even know if it's really a subpoena. The news quite often get terminology like this wrong.

If that's the case, I think my initial point still stands - either there are charges or its for somebody's else case.

Your point which I disagreed with was that there have to be charges (or a civil case) before there's a subpoena.

You didn't say "regular subpoena" (if you had, I might have asked what you meant by a "regular subpoena"). A grand jury subpoena is a subpoena. So is an administrative subpoena, for that matter.

[JudgeHearst]

"Your point which I disagreed with was that there have to be charges (or a civil case) before there's a subpoena."

Actually, I think I qualified my statement by saying "I think" or something to that effect.  But whatever, it's all good and I learned a little something about Grand Jury Subpoenas (which is cool). The purpose of my initial post was to raise the possibility that Gox/Mk may not be the direct targets of the alleged subpoena (i.e., that the subpoena is related to another case). I believe you actually agreed with this.

Suggestion: next time, say "why" you disagree instead of asserting it without any explanation.  That'll save us time in getting to the right answer.