Texas: Lawsuit Between a Bitcoin ATM Operator and a Local Sheriff

[zasad@]

https://cryptopotato.com/crypto-scam-in-texas-led-to-lawsuit-between-a-bitcoin-atm-operator-and-a-local-sheriff-report/

"Sheriff McNamara supposedly remained unfazed by the legal battle started by Bitcoin Depot, saying the company “can go to hell.”

Lux Vending – doing business as Bitcoin Depot – has reportedly filed a lawsuit against the sheriff’s office of McLennan County, Texas, accusing it of unlawfully seizing $15,000 from a BTC automated teller machine (ATM).

The authorities confiscated the amount to compensate an elderly victim who had become a victim of a cryptocurrency scam."


____
This trial will have an interesting precedent. The only winners are the scammers who received $15,000 worth of bitcoins.

[1715328141]

1715328141

[1715328141]

1715328141

[1715328141]

1715328141

[1715328141]

1715328141

[Poker Player]

The news raises many doubts in my mind.

The only winners are the scammers who received $15,000 worth of bitcoins.

Where do you get that from? I didn't see it in the news. Alleged scammers told her that to avoid a fraud she had to withdraw $15,000 and deposit them in a Bitcoin ATM. But those ATMs deposit it in an address generated by the ATM, as far as I know, they do not allow you to send it to another address, which would be the one of the scammers, and I do not see anything in the news that speaks of sending those bitcoins to another address.

[Fiatless]

https://cryptopotato.com/crypto-scam-in-texas-led-to-lawsuit-between-a-bitcoin-atm-operator-and-a-local-sheriff-report/

"Sheriff McNamara supposedly remained unfazed by the legal battle started by Bitcoin Depot, saying the company “can go to hell.”

Lux Vending – doing business as Bitcoin Depot – has reportedly filed a lawsuit against the sheriff’s office of McLennan County, Texas, accusing it of unlawfully seizing $15,000 from a BTC automated teller machine (ATM).

The authorities confiscated the amount to compensate an elderly victim who had become a victim of a cryptocurrency scam."


____
This trial will have an interesting precedent. The only winners are the scammers who received $15,000 worth of bitcoins.

According to the news from the website the woman's fund was still in the wallet and it was retrieved and returned to her which means nobody was scammed. It was not compensation but the woman got her money back and no party lost any money. There was no reason to file a suit because no party experienced any harm or loss. But I think the Bitcoin Depot filled the case to avoid a repetition of such an act or to set a precedent. They are arguing that the sheriff has the right to confiscate the funds but they lack the power to return it to the woman. Such an act by the Sheriff could harm the business in some other situations. I don't know what the law says about this situation in the US. But in my country, the lawful process will be to freeze the funds and get a court order to release the funds. This will help in avoiding further litigations.

[Poker Player]

They are arguing that the sheriff has the right to confiscate the funds but they lack the power to return it to the woman. Such an act by the Sheriff could harm the business in some other situations. I don't know what the law says about this situation in the US. But in my country, the lawful process will be to freeze the funds and get a court order to release the funds. This will help in avoiding further litigations.

This may seem like a legal gimmick but on this point I agree with the company. I don't know exactly what the legislation will be like in the USA either, but it seems to me that the most appropriate thing for the Sheriff to do would be to put the money in court along with a report of what happened, and then let the judge decide whether to return the funds directly to the woman or have to gather more evidence before deciding to do so.

[NotATether]

"Go after everyone except the scammers themselves (unless they fried big fish". That's the new standard of investigation by authorities.

Someone has to take a responsibility for gathering all this information in real-time as the scam is happening, and somehow take down some hardware to prevent the theft from taking place. As well as reporting the appropriate authorities at least to protect the victim.

[zasad@]

The news raises many doubts in my mind.

The only winners are the scammers who received $15,000 worth of bitcoins.

Where do you get that from? I didn't see it in the news. Alleged scammers told her that to avoid a fraud she had to withdraw $15,000 and deposit them in a Bitcoin ATM. But those ATMs deposit it in an address generated by the ATM, as far as I know, they do not allow you to send it to another address, which would be the one of the scammers, and I do not see anything in the news that speaks of sending those bitcoins to another address.

I did not know that after the purchase you can not send bitcoins.

https://www.journal-news.com/news/bitcoin-scam-costs-local-woman-30k/W6RLXCPOR5FWHPZNB6RHTRD7EE/
Another case where scammers got bitcoins
"The Journal-News spoke with a customer service representative at Bitcoin Depot who said there’s no way to trace where the purchased Bitcoin went. Though the representative had no knowledge of this exact case, she said the only action the company can take in cases of fraud is to deactivate the victim’s account and flag the digital wallet of the recipient to make sure no more Bitcoin can be transferred to that wallet. They can, however, return the ATM fee to the victim."

[stompix]

But I think the Bitcoin Depot filled the case to avoid a repetition of such an act or to set a precedent. They are arguing that the sheriff has the right to confiscate the funds but they lack the power to return it to the woman. Such an act by the Sheriff could harm the business in some other situations.

That's a load of crap coming from Bitcoin Depot!
The moment the assets were seized and it was a lawful request they could have simply shut up and just let it go, it was a clear scam attempt, now what they are demanding is that every single of those assets to still be held by them till a judge decides to return the money to the victim, what they are basically after is to keep the money if the victim isn't able to convince the judge it was a fraud. Pure BS!
You have an 82 yo gramma coming to an ATM now knowing what Bitcoin is and you still have the nerve to talk about minor paperwrok.

They know their ATMs are mostly used for this thing, nobody sane in the mind would pay a 10% premium when there are one hundred other cheaper solutions. Not to think of the risks of carrying 15k in cash on you till you drive to that gas station.

Also, lol:

ATTENTION: SENDING TO A WALLET THAT YOU DO NOT CONTROL IS AN EXPRESS VIOLATION OF OUR TERMS AND WILL RESULT IN YOU BEING BANNED FROM OUR PLATFORM.

What they managed is to have the worse publicity move ever, I wonder if after reading this how many will still think of using their ATMs.

[zasad@]

Also, lol:

ATTENTION: SENDING TO A WALLET THAT YOU DO NOT CONTROL IS AN EXPRESS VIOLATION OF OUR TERMS AND WILL RESULT IN YOU BEING BANNED FROM OUR PLATFORM.

What they managed is to have the worse publicity move ever, I wonder if after reading this how many will still think of using their ATMs.

Is it controlled?
I have seen how such ATMs work. If the amount exceeds the limit, then the camera takes a photo of the client's face and document, but they do not check wallets to send coins.
Of course, the service is connected to AML services, but if the wallet is new with a zero balance, then there are no checks.

[Bushdark]

Hello .! I am Daneen Kareem I am a Logo Designers by Profession. !According to an article on vending doing business as bitcoin depot filed a lawsuit against the McLennan country sheriff's office accusing it of illegally seizing $15000 from an automated banking machine ATM or the BTC. Authorities confiscated the amount to compensate an elderly victim who had been the victim of a cryptocurrency scam. The lawsuit alleges that the police circumvented the proper legal process by returning the fund of the victim. The company contends that the police action was unlawful and infringed on Bitcoin Depot's rights under Texas and US Constitutions.

This is going to be a fight for right to power and I don't think this is even necessary per day. Well the sheriff may not have the actual right to take law into there hands but it is humanly right for the victim of fraud to recieve there funds asap even without much agitations.
Looking at this situation, I think the lawsuit by the Bitcoin Depot is about flexing muscles to deal with the McLennan county sheriff for going too far returning the fund though they have the jurisdiction to sieze such fund but not to be determined by him on when to return. I don't see may need for this but It could be necessary for respect of there terms.