Judge Shoots Down ‘Bitcoin Isn’t Money’ Argument in Silk Road Trial

[keanbosch]

http://www.ahametals.com/judge-shoots-bitcoin-isnt-money-argument-silk-road-trial/

[Ron~Popeil]

Wow, that is pretty stern language in the opinion. Pretty clear indication of which way this "impartial" judge is leaning. There will be some important case law established in this trial.

[roslinpl]

Huehue

"Bitcoin isn't money"

But it is worth a lot of money in a same time

[DannyElfman]

This is really not a surprise as the Ulbright team made a very weak argument in reference to the money laundering charge.

I think the other charges are questionable since AFAIK he did not actually sell any of the drugs, but rather ran the website. I think the charges are similar to bringing charges against this forums mods for scams done by other users.

With that being said the muder for hire accusations are very troubling and I am very curious as to why he was not charged with these crimes, even though the murders were apparently not carried out (he could be charged with solicitation of trying to hire a hitman, or whatever the appropriate name of the charge would be). 

[commandrix]

It's like suing major league baseball teams because some fans of one team beat up a fan of a rival team. (Really happened.) I've kind of assumed that what happens outside of the stadium is really not the baseball teams' problem unless maybe some of the players and/or team employees were involved. But the court ruled that the baseball team was partially liable.

What I think is that maybe Silk Road should have done a better job of policing its own site, but when you get to a certain size, it's like Youtube, which doesn't know that somebody might be violating copyright law unless someone files a DMCA request.

[jbreher]

I think the other charges are questionable since AFAIK he did not actually sell any of the drugs, but rather ran the website. I think the charges are similar to bringing charges against this forums mods for scams done by other users.

Agreed.

With that being said the muder for hire accusations are very troubling and I am very curious as to why he was not charged with these crimes, even though the murders were apparently not carried out (he could be charged with solicitation of trying to hire a hitman, or whatever the appropriate name of the charge would be). 

While I am merely speculating, I would _hope_ the reason he was not so charged was that any discovery process on the part of a competent defense team would uncover evidence of entrapment.

[allthingsluxury]

Wow, that is pretty stern language in the opinion. Pretty clear indication of which way this "impartial" judge is leaning. There will be some important case law established in this trial.

Agreed.

[minerpumpkin]

It's interesting. We'll have to see whether people will take exactly the side that is supporting their argument if it comes to things like this. I mean, well, it can't be argued that Bitcoin possesses a certain value nowadays and can be used as a means of payment

[DannyElfman]

I think the other charges are questionable since AFAIK he did not actually sell any of the drugs, but rather ran the website. I think the charges are similar to bringing charges against this forums mods for scams done by other users.

Agreed.

With that being said the muder for hire accusations are very troubling and I am very curious as to why he was not charged with these crimes, even though the murders were apparently not carried out (he could be charged with solicitation of trying to hire a hitman, or whatever the appropriate name of the charge would be). 

While I am merely speculating, I would _hope_ the reason he was not so charged was that any discovery process on the part of a competent defense team would uncover evidence of entrapment.

Well if he was entrapped into soliciting these murders then I would think that the fact that he allegedly solicited these murders would not be able to be used against him either in trying to show probably cause for his case, for his bail hearings, or in his trial.

I might speculate that the government chose not to charge him with these crimes in case he was found not guilty in the crimes he is being charged with now.

[Ron~Popeil]

I think the other charges are questionable since AFAIK he did not actually sell any of the drugs, but rather ran the website. I think the charges are similar to bringing charges against this forums mods for scams done by other users.

Agreed.

With that being said the muder for hire accusations are very troubling and I am very curious as to why he was not charged with these crimes, even though the murders were apparently not carried out (he could be charged with solicitation of trying to hire a hitman, or whatever the appropriate name of the charge would be). 

While I am merely speculating, I would _hope_ the reason he was not so charged was that any discovery process on the part of a competent defense team would uncover evidence of entrapment.

Well if he was entrapped into soliciting these murders then I would think that the fact that he allegedly solicited these murders would not be able to be used against him either in trying to show probably cause for his case, for his bail hearings, or in his trial.

I might speculate that the government chose not to charge him with these crimes in case he was found not guilty in the crimes he is being charged with now.

That is a real possibility. If the murder for hire charges turn out to be true or even look true people will turn on him quickly. I am withholding judgement on it until the prosecution presents their case.

[jc01480]

Meanwhile, a federal judge just declared Bitcoin as currency.  That decision will come back to haunt the courts and be cited as a court ruling in future arguments of the same nature.

[jbreher]

Meanwhile, a federal judge just declared Bitcoin as currency.  

No. The ruling was that bitcoins are 'funds' within the language of the money laundering statutes.

Indeed, the ruling specifically indicates that "Bitcoins can be either used directly to pay for certain things or can act as a medium of exchange and be converted into a currency..."

If Bitcoins can be _converted_ into currency, then they are not in and of themselves currency.

edit: typo

[AliceWonder]

This is really not a surprise as the Ulbright team made a very weak argument in reference to the money laundering charge.

I think the other charges are questionable since AFAIK he did not actually sell any of the drugs, but rather ran the website. I think the charges are similar to bringing charges against this forums mods for scams done by other users.

With that being said the muder for hire accusations are very troubling and I am very curious as to why he was not charged with these crimes, even though the murders were apparently not carried out (he could be charged with solicitation of trying to hire a hitman, or whatever the appropriate name of the charge would be). 

The difference is this forum isn't conspiring with the scammers, which is what DPR is being accused of.

[Bit_Happy]

Meanwhile, a federal judge just declared Bitcoin as currency.  

No. The ruling was that bitcoins are 'funds' within the language of the money laundering statutes.

Indeed, the ruling specifically indicates that "Bitcoins can be either used directly to pay for certain things or can act as a medium of exchange and be converted into a currency..."

If Bitcoins can be _converted_ into currency, then they are not in and of themselves currency.

edit: typo

But 'funds' are not the same as 'property', so doesn't this court conflict with the major IRS ruling?

[AliceWonder]

With respect to why he wasn't charged with the FC murders, a prosecutor only has one shot. The case would have been really weak, They don't know who FC is, who R&W was (I suspect they were the same), or if any of the people even existed.

If they charge him, a jury decides there isn't enough to convict, and a month later they find better evidence - it's too late. So they dropped the charges because it didn't have high chance of success with the evidence they have. Especially without even identification of FC or R&W.

I suspect he will be charged in Maryland for the alleged hit on his employee, after the NY trial. That wasn't dropped and is still in play.

[kokojie]

This is really not a surprise as the Ulbright team made a very weak argument in reference to the money laundering charge.

I think the other charges are questionable since AFAIK he did not actually sell any of the drugs, but rather ran the website. I think the charges are similar to bringing charges against this forums mods for scams done by other users.

With that being said the muder for hire accusations are very troubling and I am very curious as to why he was not charged with these crimes, even though the murders were apparently not carried out (he could be charged with solicitation of trying to hire a hitman, or whatever the appropriate name of the charge would be). 

It's one thing have scams happen on the forum. It's entirely another thing when you have illegal substance as categories listed for people to buy/sell items in, and also made a ton of forum posts related to these items.

[transient858]

What is the odd the accused will be acquitted?

[AliceWonder]

What is the odd the accused will be acquitted?

I suspect his only chance is if the defense can demonstrate that evidence was collected illegally and therefore not admissible but Ross appears to have left a pretty clear trail.

What a jury will decide though is very hard to predict.

[ajareselde]

What is the odd the accused will be acquitted?

I suspect his only chance is if the defense can demonstrate that evidence was collected illegally and therefore not admissible but Ross appears to have left a pretty clear trail.

What a jury will decide though is very hard to predict.

That is probably his best defense, but i doubt the jury will decide in his favor, knowing he did what he did.
Even when they see how that argument is valid, bad media press that surrounds bitcoin will make them turn their heads to any iragularities in the case.
I think hes in a very bad position, and that he wont get away with it easy.

[jbreher]

But 'funds' are not the same as 'property', so doesn't this court conflict with the major IRS ruling?

Well, that is one way to look at it.

However, the IRS is a part of the Executive branch. They have not ruled -- in a judicial sense -- as to the nature of bitcoin. They have stated that _their_interpretation_ of the regulations (CFR), which are in turn an _interpretation_ of the statutes (USC), has led them to issue the _guidance_ (not even binding upon taxpayers, nor the Tax Court) that bitcoins will be _treated_ as property for the express scope of administering the tax code.

This particular court (a single US Circuit?*) has made the judgement that bitcoin should be treated as 'funds' within the application of the money laundering statutes. (*part of the Judicial branch - this is an article III court, right? IIRC)

If the scope of each ruling were universal, these would be interpretations that are in conflict. But their scopes are narrowly defined.

If the SR judge's ruling withstands all appeals, then her ruling that bitcoins are 'funds' for the purpose of the money laundering statutes will become precedent - albeit only within that District, or as high as the appeals process rises.

Guidance from the IRS is legally worthless in any event. Though it does provide ... err ... guidance on what the IRS position is likely to be in any action against a taxpayer - again appealable all the way through Tax Court, US Curcuit, US Court of Appeals, and USSC.

Bear in mind I am merely regurgitating what I believe to be - IANAL.

Edit: emphasis on _treated_

[Swordsoffreedom]

http://www.ahametals.com/judge-shoots-bitcoin-isnt-money-argument-silk-road-trial/

I knew that precedent wouldn't work but thanks for sharing it
I wasn't sure when Ross would begin his trial but its nice to keep track of these things.

[Harley997]

What is the odd the accused will be acquitted?

I suspect his only chance is if the defense can demonstrate that evidence was collected illegally and therefore not admissible but Ross appears to have left a pretty clear trail.

What a jury will decide though is very hard to predict.

That is probably his best defense, but i doubt the jury will decide in his favor, knowing he did what he did.
Even when they see how that argument is valid, bad media press that surrounds bitcoin will make them turn their heads to any iragularities in the case.
I think hes in a very bad position, and that he wont get away with it easy.

If the question is was evidence collected properly then the case would likely be essentially decided by appeals and/or the supreme court. These high courts could potentially decide that evidence would not be presentable at trial

[Bit_Happy]

But 'funds' are not the same as 'property', so doesn't this court conflict with the major IRS ruling?

Well, that is one way to look at it.

However, the IRS is a part of the Executive branch. They have not ruled -- in a judicial sense -- as to the nature of bitcoin. They have stated that _their_interpretation_ of the regulations (CFR), which are in turn an _interpretation_ of the statutes (USC), has led them to issue the _guidance_ (not even binding upon taxpayers, nor the Tax Court) that bitcoins will be _treated_ as property for the express scope of administering the tax code.

This particular court (a single US Circuit?*) has made the judgement that bitcoin should be treated as 'funds' within the application of the money laundering statutes. (*part of the Judicial branch - this is an article III court, right? IIRC)

If the scope of each ruling were universal, these would be interpretations that are in conflict. But their scopes are narrowly defined.

If the SR judge's ruling withstands all appeals, then her ruling that bitcoins are 'funds' for the purpose of the money laundering statutes will become precedent - albeit only within that District, or as high as the appeals process rises.

Guidance from the IRS is legally worthless in any event. Though it does provide ... err ... guidance on what the IRS position is likely to be in any action against a taxpayer - again appealable all the way through Tax Court, US Curcuit, US Court of Appeals, and USSC.

Bear in mind I am merely regurgitating what I believe to be - IANAL.

Edit: emphasis on _treated_

Legal speak is a challenge for me, but I carefully read every word.
"But their scopes are narrowly defined"
^^^That leaves plenty of room for apparent conflicts, and... It will create piles of income for lawyers and tax advisers who gain from "servicing" our new economy.
So glad we have a free country.   

[jbreher]

Legal speak is a challenge for me, but I carefully read every word.
"But their scopes are narrowly defined"
^^^That leaves plenty of room for apparent conflicts, and... It will create piles of income for lawyers and tax advisers who gain from "servicing" our new economy.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings. But if any of this is surprising, you probably have not been paying attention.

BTW: lawyerese is a challenge to me as well. But somehow, we have managed to elect mostly lawyers to office. Bad choice - hunh?

[InwardContour]

But 'funds' are not the same as 'property', so doesn't this court conflict with the major IRS ruling?

Well, that is one way to look at it.

However, the IRS is a part of the Executive branch. They have not ruled -- in a judicial sense -- as to the nature of bitcoin. They have stated that _their_interpretation_ of the regulations (CFR), which are in turn an _interpretation_ of the statutes (USC), has led them to issue the _guidance_ (not even binding upon taxpayers, nor the Tax Court) that bitcoins will be _treated_ as property for the express scope of administering the tax code.

This particular court (a single US Circuit?*) has made the judgement that bitcoin should be treated as 'funds' within the application of the money laundering statutes. (*part of the Judicial branch - this is an article III court, right? IIRC)

If the scope of each ruling were universal, these would be interpretations that are in conflict. But their scopes are narrowly defined.

If the SR judge's ruling withstands all appeals, then her ruling that bitcoins are 'funds' for the purpose of the money laundering statutes will become precedent - albeit only within that District, or as high as the appeals process rises.

Guidance from the IRS is legally worthless in any event. Though it does provide ... err ... guidance on what the IRS position is likely to be in any action against a taxpayer - again appealable all the way through Tax Court, US Curcuit, US Court of Appeals, and USSC.

Bear in mind I am merely regurgitating what I believe to be - IANAL.

Edit: emphasis on _treated_

For money laundering purposes bitcoin is considered to be something you can launder money through. There are a number of vehicles that you can use to launder that are not money. One example is houses, as they are not in any way considered to be money but you can launder money through houses/real estate.