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

[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.

[1715618888]

1715618888

[1715618888]

1715618888

[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.