Too many injustice with seizures of Bitcoin

[HeatBit]

I believe that the law or the government taking over someones Bitcoin simply because they are criminal is a fraud idea, and all thanks to this Canadian Judge for doing something right, I doubt something like this can play out in America.

This man is a convicted killer, a well enough reason for anyone in power to forever seize their Bitcoin but instead he ordered that the Bitcoin wallet should be returned to the convicted man's family.

This is very rare, you can read more on x



https://x.com/BitcoinNewsCom/status/2118017888795730064?a=E-66Y_9jc-BjrP4R_N0&s=19

I also want to add a point, that finding lost Bitcoin doesn't make the government the new owner, that's someone's life savings and the government always have the resources to find the real owners of those Bitcoin, sitting on it makes them fraudulent.

They are birds of same feathers just like the scammers and the hackers.

[Charles-Tim]

Forget about bitcoin this time around, let us use fiat. You can kill someone, but if your money is legit, that will not make the court to seize your money. Your family or who you want will be the one that will be in charge of your money and property.

Is this not different from a stolen money? Or stolen money used to buy or build up property which can be seized by the government if they found out about it.

The bitcoin was not seen tainted or illegally owned is the reason.

[Churchillvv]

I doubt something like this can play out in America.

Lol are you serious right now? It could happen in America and if happens it would have probably be worse.

The fact that they returned the bitcoin to the family makes to much difference, you are only concerned because you’re a bitcoin enthusiast but remove the name bitcoin from the equation would you support they give wealth of the convicted killer back to his family? Of course personally I would say yes only based on his crime if he did some kind of revenge thing or something that I find just but not just by the law he can have his bitcoin/money back as long as it was not stole or gotten from the said crime.

However governments commit more crime than the average people but because there is little to no check and balance they are not held responsible.

[348Judah]

I believe that the law or the government taking over someones Bitcoin simply because they are criminal is a fraud idea, and all thanks to this Canadian Judge for doing something right, I doubt something like this can play out in America.

Don't even expect something like that to happen in America; are you telling me that all the coins they are in possession of from the seizures made are all going to be forfeited by the government? They will rather be excited to see more coins getting confiscated and laid hold upon them. Had they had plans in such regard, they would have done that right from the earlier coins being recovered by them. Canada may share the same order with us, but don't expect them to behave the same way.

[MorganaX]

The man was convicted for murder during a drug deal which is already not looking good on his part and with the way the government system is designed coupled with how the government see bitcoin, I can confirm that this is a rare judgement and I know for certain that if this case took place in other countries other than America, I doubt that the man bitcoin will be returned to his family because they are counts that can follow that he is actively using drugs funds for bitcoin purchases which can lead to many other criminals counts and to the final government claim of seizing those bitcoin.

[Donneski]

It seems the news is getting too many attention because it was an initially confiscated Bitcoin wallet that the judge asked that they should return to the killer's family. I believe they've checked every verifiable evidence before the court and found out that the Bitcoin wasn't a proceed of any illicit activity, hence, the order to return it to the family.
If the killer had in the past used the wallet to receive proceeds from illegal engagements, the wallet would've been permanently confiscated to the Canadian state.

[macson]

This is my view, but that MFs might be guilty of the crime he committed in killing his fellow student, but the Bitcoin seized from his laptop has not been proven to be related to the crime he committed, so it should actually be returned to the perpetrator's family. The victim's family might say that the Bitcoin should be given as compensation for the crime he committed, but I don't see any obligation for that since that MF has already been sentenced to life in prison for the crime he committed.

[Alvin_talk]

I believe that the law or the government taking over someones Bitcoin simply because they are criminal is a fraud idea, and all thanks to this Canadian Judge for doing something right, I doubt something like this can play out in America.

Don't even expect something like that to happen in America; are you telling me that all the coins they are in possession of from the seizures made are all going to be forfeited by the government? They will rather be excited to see more coins getting confiscated and laid hold upon them.

I wouldn't say so because most countries including the US has a legal provision that lets individuals or citizens challange the seizure of an asset or property. This is just one of those cases where the bitcoin in question had no link or connection with the criminal act in question and I don't think any sane state will seize such coin either. Even Canadian government have some coins they have seized in the past. This means that all government seize or confiscates coins, it just depends on the situation surrounding the crime AFAIK.

[Alphakilo]

It seems the news is getting too many attention because it was an initially confiscated Bitcoin wallet that the judge asked that they should return to the killer's family. I believe they've checked every verifiable evidence before the court and found out that the Bitcoin wasn't a proceed of any illicit activity, hence, the order to return it to the family.
If the killer had in the past used the wallet to receive proceeds from illegal engagements, the wallet would've been permanently confiscated to the Canadian state.

The government in this case did a good thing in finding out the true source of the Bitcoin in the perpetrator's possession before passing the sentence and that they did right instead of just confiscating it because he committed a crime.
They showed how private capital is a right to own and not a part of crime even if it belonged to a criminal. That's how property rights is protected and the judge did well in his judgement.

[Zoomic]

This is my view, but that MFs might be guilty of the crime he committed in killing his fellow student, but the Bitcoin seized from his laptop has not been proven to be related to the crime he committed, so it should actually be returned to the perpetrator's family. The victim's family might say that the Bitcoin should be given as compensation for the crime he committed, but I don't see any obligation for that since that MF has already been sentenced to life in prison for the crime he committed.

The perpetrator's I don't think will want to use the Bitcoin as a compensation to the deceased family. Inasmuch as their son was too inhumane to take the life of a fellow student, the life imprisonment judgement has also taken away his freedom for the rest of his life on earth so his own family have technically lost him as well.

They'll likely put the money to good use or probably use it to sensitize the young people in their region on how to control their temperaments and be peaceful with each other so they don't end up like their jailed son

[Joy_learns_crypto]

If his Bitcoin wasn't gotten from illegal means then they don't have any right to seize his Bitcoin and confiscate it. From what I can read the man is convicted for murder and that is separate from his finances and so should not be seize.
Their are situations where his Bitcoin can be seized like if he is on the run, they can seize his funds which since it is in Bitcoin would be very difficult.
They did the right thing giving it to his relatives which is the most suitable situation, I don't think you are totally right that if it was in the US it would be seized.

[coinlary]

Who are you suggesting to have it then?  a random person on the street .

What you posted only worked if the man truly obtained the BTC legitimately after investigation.  

In cases  where the convicted is guilty of defrauding multiple individuals or  obtaining the BTC through confirmed criminal means , there's no other choice than the court to seize it . It will definitely be hard to identify the victims and how to distribute it back even if they are able to get a list which  is highly unlikely.
 

[Mia Chloe]

I believe that the law or the government taking over someones Bitcoin simply because they are criminal is a fraud idea, and all thanks to this Canadian Judge for doing something right, I doubt something like this can play out in America.
This man is a convicted killer, a well enough reason for anyone in power to forever seize their Bitcoin but instead he ordered that the Bitcoin wallet should be returned to the convicted man's family.

Permit me to say the government itself is an extension of the law and you do not expect the law to actually be against the government rationally. Stolen coins are like the bed rock of hodlings of governmental bodies and countries. To start with what do you think they would have done to it in the first place?

Laws and regulations differ across regions and you cannot generalise stuff like this that are very subjective to your jurisdiction to start with.

[icebar]

Bitcoin is a digital asset, and it is not a crime for a person to have assets. That person may be a murderer. But his assets should not be confiscated for his murder. A murderer may also have a family, and the owner of that asset may be any member of the family. If those in power are not honest, then it will never be possible to establish peace in a good world. Because where there is no appreciation of fairness, there is also no appreciation of justice, as a result of which various unrests are common. I think that the judge who gave such a decision has given the right verdict. The government should safely deliver that person's Bitcoin to his family. A fraudster, thief, and hacker steals the wealth of others and makes it their own. It would be similar with the above case. If a murderer's family members cannot receive the assets, it would certainly be an injustice.

[Nothingtodo]

The government does not easily return the seized Bitcoin to the criminal, but the above incident is really surprising. Canadian George ordered the transfer of the Bitcoin wallet to the criminal family.
However, I know that if a case is filed against any wallet, if it wins the case, the government is obliged to return the seized Bitcoin to the owner. But in such a situation, winning the case is very difficult. Moreover, if the Bitcoin is not illegally obtained and is held according to all the government's policies, then it can certainly be said that even if it is confiscated, it will be obliged to return it to the owner.

[Alpha Marine]

Except I'm missing something, but it is normal for a person's asset or money not to be confiticated if his crime has nothing to do with the money right?
I have never see a case where a person commits a crime and his asset is seized even though the asset has nothing to do with the crime.
if a drunk driver kills a person, he would only be punised for the crime he commited because whatever asset he has was not gotten or connected to the crime he commited. For an asset like Bitcoin to be seized, then there must be a connection with the crime and the asset.
In some cases, teh assets are fronzen pending further investigation, depending on how serious the case is, and if the investigation yeild no result, then they will be released.

[CucakRowo]

Don't even expect something like that to happen in America; are you telling me that all the coins they are in possession of from the seizures made are all going to be forfeited by the government?

US government also hold a large amount of seized Bitcoin. Temporary seizure of asset as evidence, civil forfeiture and criminal forfeiture these are not types of legal process. If US government wishes to seize any asset then it must demonstrate specific legal basis. And in many case, owner or concerned party can challenge seizure.

These processes can be costly and complex. Especially for those who lack good legal representation.  So, I cannot say for certain that same thing would not have happened in America. Rather question is whether prosecution could have established link between Bitcoin and crime, and how court would have evaluated evidence.

In my view, core principle should not be country specific. Government does not acquire ownership of an asset simply by seizing it.

[bhadz]

The law is very clear about these matters. If the wealth, assets, and all other possessions that a convicted man has got came from illegal sources and were stolen from others, they're going to seize them and return them to the rightful owner. But if they have found no fault in it, let the convicted man pay his penalty on the specific crime that he's done and not for what he's got prior to the crime he's done. Unless you're in a government that has got a dictator leader, they can seize everything that people have worked for and they'll use the man's crime for confiscating what they've worked hard all of their lifetime.

[lombok]

Except I'm missing something, but it is normal for a person's asset or money not to be confiticated if his crime has nothing to do with the money right?
I have never see a case where a person commits a crime and his asset is seized even though the asset has nothing to do with the crime.
if a drunk driver kills a person, he would only be punised for the crime he commited because whatever asset he has was not gotten or connected to the crime he commited. For an asset like Bitcoin to be seized, then there must be a connection with the crime and the asset.
In some cases, teh assets are fronzen pending further investigation, depending on how serious the case is, and if the investigation yeild no result, then they will be released.

The principles of modern criminal law always involve a direct relationship between the act committed and the property possessed. Confiscation of property can only be done if there is a use of the property in committing a crime or if the property is an outcome of illegal actions. In case where the matter at hand does not involve any monetary interests but rather is an example of negligence, the property cannot be touched since it was legally obtained. The investigators are just allowed to block the accounts temporarily to prevent money laundering.

[serjent05]

Authority can't just seize the asset of a convicted criminal.  As long as the money is clean and his offense is not related to financial fraud, the assets of the person stay with the person.  Those who seize the asset or money of a convicted criminal can face several charges if proven that the seizure is illegal.  The only case where the assets of the convicted person are seized is if the person does not have enough funds to cover his monetary obligation on the crime the person did.