Seems to fit the Legal discussion thread along with the Bitcoin Discussion thread
http://www.ahametals.com/judge-shoots-bitcoin-isnt-money-argument-silk-road-trial/http://www.pymnts.com/news/2014/bitcoin-is-money-says-silk-road-trial-judge/#.U8Bg7rGTEvI51 Page Court Order
http://www.scribd.com/doc/233234104/Forrest-Denial-of-Defense-Motion-in-Silk-Road-CaseThe judge in the Silk Road trial has struck down the “Bitcoin isn’t money, and without money their can be no money laundering” defense that shut-down bitcoin-based black market was attempting to employ.
The judge also threw out the argument that Ross Ulbricht, the 30-year-old alleged creator of the Silk Road who currently is facing charges of money laundering, drug-trafficking and being a criminal “kingpin,” was merely the innocent creator of a website that others then used to sell lots and lots of drugs.
“Silk Road was specifically and intentionally designed for the purpose of facilitating unlawful transactions,” trial judge Katherine Forres in her 51-page order. “Ulbricht is alleged to have knowingly and intentionally constructed and operated an expansive black market for selling and purchasing narcotics and malicious software and for laundering money. This separates Ulbricht’s alleged conduct from the mass of others whose websites may—without their planning or expectation—be used for unlawful purposes.”
So I'm wondering, what part of the legal defense did the judge shut down? The "Bitcoin isn't money" or "without money their can be no money laundering?" What legal ramifications are there (if they've been used before) with that aspect? I know the government classifies Bitcoin as an asset and not money, but the "shutting down" of the defense would suggest that it is money. This is old, I know, but has there been any further clarification for this?
