Too many injustice with seizures of Bitcoin

[Questat]

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.

That depends on the law which the government adopts. If that bitcoin was earned from fraud and money laundering, then that should be seized by the government. But if that was stolen from someone's wallet and nothing else, then that should be return to the owner itself.

However, there are still countries that are not open about bitcoin and permanently ban bitcoin existence. The real owner might be put in danger instead if the government finds out that he is still accumulating a lot of bitcoin even if the government is banning it.

[Japinat]

The government would not care about that as it's just a small amount estimated at less than $200k based on what I read. So it's just a small amount of money and they would not make an effort to intervene, but if that was 5k Bitcoin or more they might take over. So you can say the judge did the right thing and the government did not interfere, simply because it's just immaterial to them. That's the real reason.

[X-ray]

An asset that is not linked to the crime won't be seized I believe, but in U.S. with asset forfeiture law the legal enforcement can sue the object which make it guilty until proven innocent.

If you can prove the asset have nothing to do with the crime, it won't be seized forever.

[mirakal]

An asset that is not linked to the crime won't be seized I believe, but in U.S. with asset forfeiture law the legal enforcement can sue the object which make it guilty until proven innocent.

If you can prove the asset have nothing to do with the crime, it won't be seized forever.

That's the case here, Bitcoin was not linked to the crime that's why it was returned, but the C$5,000 in cash was linked so it was not returned. This isn't the same case as Bitcoin forfeitures by the government because those forfeitures have valid reasons, since Bitcoin was used for committing crimes particularly money laundering. I think it's a wrong comparison from OP.

[Outhue]

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.

True, they must have ordered the return of the assets because it's genuinely his own, and yes his family are the best people to give the assets back to, but where is the proof that every seized Bitcoin from criminals are returned to the rightful owner? I have never for once read a news online talking about that, I guess this part is something that OP is talking about too, all seized Bitcoin and digital assets belongs to the country after they get seized, it's looking more like a thief stole the goods and a bigger thief takes over the good.

[Hewlet]

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.

If the bitcoin in the mans wallet is not in any way affiliated with the killing case, then it is not right ceasing it and allowing the family suffer the absent of the man and finances that should have helped take care of the home in the mans absent. In most cases, the reason why asset gets seized when the owner is found to have committed a crime is mostly that  the asset is link to the crime. if there is no link, then there is no need for an asset seizure but it that the asset is bitcoin, fiat or any other thing including properties.

[Davidloki]

I doubt something like this can play out in America.

Exactly my thought, this judgement cannot happen in America because the government would be more than happy to confiscate his bitcoin on the account that it was acquired illegal due to his foul offenses and crimes. The American government on several occasions have seized bitcoins both for good reasons and on occasions where it was not necessary and that's not totally fair to the victim's family.

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

Lol, that's not a lie in my opinion, they would only choose a crime that seems comfortable to be called "just" and blame others for doing same.

[Zlantann]

The government would not care about that as it's just a small amount estimated at less than $200k based on what I read. So it's just a small amount of money and they would not make an effort to intervene, but if that was 5k Bitcoin or more they might take over. So you can say the judge did the right thing and the government did not interfere, simply because it's just immaterial to them. That's the real reason.

The government shouldn't take custody of a coin seized from criminals if the victims can be identified. Those involved can sue the government and can have a favorable judgment. There are some examples where the government gave back money to people who were scammed after the funds were seized. The Mt. Gox and FTX cases are examples where the money was not seized or auctioned by the government. Rather, victims got their money, although it took a long time, as in the case of Mt. Gox.

[moneystery]

The government doesn't have any right to seize any of the perpetrator's belongings if they aren't proven to be connected to the crime he committed. Regardless of the perpetrator's actions, whether it was murder or drug sales, if the Bitcoin is unrelated to the crime, the government has no right to seize it.
That's why giving the Bitcoin back to the perpetrator's family was the right decision. The Bitcoin was legitimately obtained, and if the government were to force it to be confiscated, they would be like 'robbers,' and the perpetrator's family could also sue the government.

[slaman29]

Regardless of the perpetrator's actions, whether it was murder or drug sales, if the Bitcoin is unrelated to the crime, the government has no right to seize it.

Well its hard to say that any money the perpetrator owned had nothing to do with his crimes (drug sales especially if you're using that example) and I think it is justice that that money is returned or at least used to help the victims of his crimes. Justice is not about being fair usually but about trying to balance the scales, right?

[AprilioMP]

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.

The law adjudicates cases in accordance with the principle of justice to uncover the truth. Judges must not order the seizure of a defendant’s Bitcoin if the case involves a criminal offense such as murder. If they proceed to seize the defendant’s Bitcoin, that is wrong and they should face a countersuit.
A person’s Bitcoin may be seized by the government and returned to the government if it was obtained through theft, since stolen property does not belong to the thief.

[m2017]

I believe that the law or the government taking over someones Bitcoin simply because they are criminal is a fraud idea,

No, that’s called something else: robbery. In other words, the taking of something through the use of force.

and all thanks to this Canadian Judge for doing something right, I doubt something like this can play out in America.

"The C$5,000 cash found in his apartment stays forfeited." - Was the criminal origin of this money also established?

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

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.

Because the investigation failed to prove that this money had a criminal origin. In this instance, at least, they made an attempt to find that out, rather than just quietly confiscating it.

It’s as if a person who has committed one crime is (by default) assumed to be involved in other crimes, and all the assets they’ve accumulated are presumed to be of criminal origin. But even a murderer could be an honest investor, couldn’t they?

This is very rare, you can read more on x



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

Yes, you’re right. Typically, when investigating certain crimes, if any assets come to the attention of the authorities, they are automatically confiscated (although they may have absolutely no connection to the current crime), without any inquiry into the legitimacy of their origin. This amounts to arbitrary action by the regulator.

I also want to add a point, that finding lost Bitcoin doesn't make the government the new owner,

Try convincing the government of that.

that's someone's life savings and the government always have the resources to find the real owners of those Bitcoin,

Won’t even waste resources on a search.

sitting on it makes them fraudulent.

Correct it. Like a robber.

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

If we assume that, upon gaining access to other's crypto assets, the aforementioned individuals misappropriate them, then yes, that would be the case.


The principle of the presumption of innocence (applied to crypto assets) should be framed as follows: an individual’s crypto assets can't be deemed to be of criminal origin unless proven otherwise. In other words, from the perspective of a regulator (the entity that creates and enforces laws), all assets held by citizens must, by default, be considered "clean".

[Bigjoe33]

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.  

This is where the OP failed to point out. His major point was just that government are stealing from victims if they seize there money when convicted. But everything depends on the cause of the arrest or your crime, because like you said, I thinks it's very wrong for a wealthy man who rapped his house help to be detained and his properties or finances forfeited, because it's clear he didn't make the money from crime.

It's a different case when a kidnaper is arrested and jailed. It is okay for such a person's acount to be seized because it's clear he made wealth through crime. I think the case presented above by the OP where the convicts money was released to his family shows that he didn't make the money from crime, else, they wouldn't have released it.

[Aanuoluwatofunmi]

The only advice I can give for now is to ensure that we don't contribute our own coins to the ones that will be confiscated by the government to lay hold upon; one of the ways through which we can secure ourselves from any risk in this manner is by using a non-custodial wallet. Another reason is to ensure that we don't get involved with any form of dirty coins in our wallet or exchange for them. Lastly, you should not allow hackers to penetrate our wallet by any means and take away the precious coins we have from us.

[Jubilee58]

If anyone commits an offence, the person should be charged for the offence committed, and taking over his belongings or assets as part of his punishment may not be the right thing to do. This judge has done the right thing convicting this killer for his offence, and confiscating or taking over his Bitcoin would have shown a sign of interest in his digital asset. There are actually transparent judges, but some judges are more transparent. There are several occasions where someone commits an offence, and his penalty went beyond his offence. This very man was was convicted for murder, and not for stealing Bitcoin, and he would have paid more than his offence if his Bitcoin was seized from him because the law didn't state charging a murderer to life imprisonment, and seizure of his investment or assets at the same time.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

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.

it'll probably cost more to look for the real owners than it'll be to make use of the recovered funds to better the society by building more government infrastructures or doing government projects instead of just sitting on the coins or embezzling the funds one way or another.

Most of the scammers/hackers chats or procedures of stealing the coins ftom their victims aren't always available and they won't want to make that information known to the government (talking about the scanners), some of the victims have moved on so looking for the real owners isn't as easy as it seems.

The law enforcement also can used the time and resources on doing what you're saying into tracking other scammers and fighting scams/hacks so as to descourage these acts. If  the victims come up to claim their money, I believe they'll get it then to waste resources on looking for the owners of things the owners aren't even looking for.

[Dickiy]

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.

The judge does not necessarily issue an order to return bitcoin if there is no element of his criminal involvement with bitcoin. So it needs to be separated between evidence and private property. Unless some of the bitcoin has been mixed with criminal acts, they have an obligation to confiscate it.

[stompix]

I doubt something like this can play out in America.

Says the 3rd-worlder from his mud hut, masturbating at the thought of a green Visa!

Fucking shit, you people have an obsession with America, the news is about Canada, immediately bring America!
Why didn't you ask yourself is that is possible in Nigeria?

This is where the OP failed to point out. His major point was just that government are stealing from victims if they seize there money when convicted. But everything depends on the cause of the arrest or your crime, because like you said, I thinks it's very wrong for a wealthy man who rapped his house help to be detained and his properties or finances forfeited, because it's clear he didn't make the money from crime.

Op is used to a lawless country and he can't process that there are countries where the law works, where there is no blatant government abuse, where things are pretty normal and that all conspiracy theories about the government turning anyone who opposes it into Soylent Green are nothing more than conspiracies.

[davis196]

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

I don't have to read the post on X. If the convicted killer didn't steal or obtain these BTC via illegal methods, the court cannot confiscate the BTC from his wallet. The "innocent until proven guilty" rule is valid for everyone. The court could order the guy to pay a financial compensation to the family of the person, whom he murdered, but that's a different case scenario. How can you say that the government taking someone's Bitcoin because they are criminal is a fraud idea? Are you suggesting that all the crypto scammers should keep the crypto, which they've gathered via scams and criminal activities? What about all the victims of crypto scams? Who is going to return their stolen crypto, if the government doesn't confiscate the crypto from the criminals?

[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.

True, they must have ordered the return of the assets because it's genuinely his own, and yes his family are the best people to give the assets back to, but where is the proof that every seized Bitcoin from criminals are returned to the rightful owner? I have never for once read a news online talking about that, I guess this part is something that OP is talking about too, all seized Bitcoin and digital assets belongs to the country after they get seized, it's looking more like a thief stole the goods and a bigger thief takes over the good.

Well, I was speaking about it in general so it includes the other assets but about bitcoin, you're right that I can't remember it if there's a case like that. With what I've read about those seized coins in the past, when the government gets them then it's already theirs not unless there's an order to return it or there's a dispute from where they've taken it. Although most that I've read of happened from their operation which includes the silk road.