Charlie Shrem Pleads Guilty - What do you think?

[culexevilman]

Good luck Charlie, May the force be with you.

Culex

[Bit_Happy]

Charlie made the only sensible choice, hopefully his new business will be a lasting success. 

[BIGbangTheory]

I think anyone in this kind of situation would have taken any chance they had to get themselves a lighter sentence even if it meant pleading guilty. It seems this was the case and I know many of us if put into the same situation would have taken the same decision.

The government (both federal and state) tends to charge people with very serious crimes with harsh potential punishments and then offer a plea deal in which they get a very minor sentence.

It almost always makes sense to plead guilty unless you can prove your innocence as it is too much of a gamble to go to trial.

[jbreher]

http://www.coinfinance.com/news/charlie-shrem-pleads-guilty

I know all of you are aware of this news already. I'm interested in what you think about it?

Well, I don't think all the facts have been publicly exposed. However, from what has been made available, it sounds as if Mr. Shrem has indeed engaged in what the state terms 'money laundering'.

More importantly, I find the entire doctrine of 'money laundering' being a crime to be an abhorrent miscarriage of justice. If I were to be on the jury for this case (as if), this latter point would dominate my balloting.

I also find the established practice of prosecutors 'throwing the book' at the accused, in the expectation of being able to get the accused to self-incriminate to a lesser charge to be yet another abhorrent miscarriage of justice.

Though I certainly do not fault Mr. Shrem for acquiescing to what he felt was the best of the shitty array of available options.

[Ron~Popeil]

It is easy to say other people should martyr themselves for the cause. It is mach more difficult to be so idealistic when it is your freedom and livelihood in question. I think he did the right thing for himself and his family. There is no shame in that.

 

[Bill Bisco]

I must admit I'm disappointed with you Charlie.  If you are truly innocent then you must not plead guilty to *ANY* charges that you did not commit.   We cannot permit the Federal Mafia to simply threaten everyone into submission.  This sets a very bad precedent for the future and other Bitcoin users.

[Bill Bisco]

It is easy to say other people should martyr themselves for the cause. It is mach more difficult to be so idealistic when it is your freedom and livelihood in question. I think he did the right thing for himself and his family. There is no shame in that.

 

It is easier to say such things when your own life is not on the line; however, it is no less true that every time someone pleads guilty to a crime they did not commit the world dies a little.

[Marlo Stanfield]

Well, I think he very likely committed a "crime" according to US law. And given the offer of a deal like this, what other choice could he have made realistically? These aren't the type of laws that the public are really going to care about or feel that they are unjust, so any type of protest by him would likely end up failing.

[Ron~Popeil]

It is easy to say other people should martyr themselves for the cause. It is mach more difficult to be so idealistic when it is your freedom and livelihood in question. I think he did the right thing for himself and his family. There is no shame in that.

 

It easier to say such things when your own life is not on the line; however, it is no less true but every time someone pleads guilty to a crime they did not commit the world dies a little.

That is the sad truth of the world we live in. My grandfather used to tell me to pick my battles and to make sure they are worth fighting. This kind of battle just isn't worth the risk. I understand and agree with your stance on this in principle, but losing your loved ones and freedom for what could be decades is a really high price to pay.    

[QuestionAuthority]

http://www.coinfinance.com/news/charlie-shrem-pleads-guilty

I know all of you are aware of this news already. I'm interested in what you think about it?

Well, I don't think all the facts have been publicly exposed. However, from what has been made available, it sounds as if Mr. Shrem has indeed engaged in what the state terms 'money laundering'.

More importantly, I find the entire doctrine of 'money laundering' being a crime to be an abhorrent miscarriage of justice. If I were to be on the jury for this case (as if), this latter point would dominate my balloting.

I also find the established practice of prosecutors 'throwing the book' at the accused, in the expectation of being able to get the accused to self-incriminate to a lesser charge to be yet another abhorrent miscarriage of justice.

Though I certainly do not fault Mr. Shrem for acquiescing to what he felt was the best of the shitty array of available options.

I think that an intelligent realistic perspective. Yes, he was guilty of breaking an unjust law designed to allow the government to attack anyone they disagree with indiscriminately.  I don't think anyone would fault him for protecting himself. There aren't many Gandhi's out there protecting the greater good. That's what makes them special. I seriously doubt even if he fought the complaint any good would come out of it. I would have done the same thing.

The government passed a bad law - prohibition. They created an underworld of people willing to break that law. Illegal alcohol led to other illegal activities like gambling, prostitution, murder, bribery and general rampant violence. During that time the police murdered as many people as the criminals they were fighting. The government created a criminal element that survived long beyond the prohibition era. Bad laws turn good people into criminals. Homeland security can currently hold U.S. citizens detained on U.S. soil in military custody for an indefinite detention period without trial. Bad laws are stacking up here faster than we can track them.

[TheButterZone]

1) There has never been a rule on Silk Road that it was only to be used for illegal exchanges
2) Even if there were such a rule, mala prohibita of human rights (like self-harm without harming others) is indefensible bullshit

[foulowl]

I hope this ends well for Charlie Shrem. I really like him too and a technicality should not destroy someones reputation.

[franky1]

I must admit I'm disappointed with you Charlie.  If you are truly innocent then you must not plead guilty to *ANY* charges that you did not commit.   We cannot permit the Federal Mafia to simply threaten everyone into submission.  This sets a very bad precedent for the future and other Bitcoin users.

guess u dont know how the system works..

if they have proof of communications btween the two parties then that alone is enough for 'conspiracy". then theres proof of FIAT bank transfers.

these days saying "i didnt know" is not enough. thats what government are trying to push, for people to learn everyones life story before moving money to be 100% sure its not used for illegal activity.

so if there was even the smallest indication shrem knew any illicit possible uses of the funds, then pleading innocent wont help. he would have to have lots of documents and proof of no knowledge, which is harder to prove.

so why plead innocent if they have any indication that is provable against him, meaning a lengthier sentance due to basically lying under oath.. or plead guilty and get a light sentance for the things he did actually do and maybe get a deal to have other charges he didnt do  thrown out, due to him being honest and above board

[BTCfaucetTIME]

I must admit I'm disappointed with you Charlie.  If you are truly innocent then you must not plead guilty to *ANY* charges that you did not commit.   We cannot permit the Federal Mafia to simply threaten everyone into submission.  This sets a very bad precedent for the future and other Bitcoin users.

You need to take your chances of winning at trial into consideration. If there is evidence against him and the potential penalty is great then it would be better to accept a guilty plea, especially if the plea deal would likely result in no jail time.

[Yankee (BitInstant)]

I must admit I'm disappointed with you Charlie.  If you are truly innocent then you must not plead guilty to *ANY* charges that you did not commit.   We cannot permit the Federal Mafia to simply threaten everyone into submission.  This sets a very bad precedent for the future and other Bitcoin users.

You need to take your chances of winning at trial into consideration. If there is evidence against him and the potential penalty is great then it would be better to accept a guilty plea, especially if the plea deal would likely result in no jail time.

No one ever wins at trial.

[negafen]

I think anyone in this kind of situation would have taken any chance they had to get themselves a lighter sentence even if it meant pleading guilty. It seems this was the case and I know many of us if put into the same situation would have taken the same decision.

Especially anybody with a family...imagine having to go decades without seeing those people you hold most dear in your life.

I'd rather be dead. I'm not alone.

Can't compare white collar crime with rape and murder.

Charlie Shrem was just buying and selling bitcoin. It is a victimless crime.

[Beliathon]

I must admit I'm disappointed with you Charlie.  If you are truly innocent then you must not plead guilty to *ANY* charges that you did not commit.   We cannot permit the Federal Mafia to simply threaten everyone into submission.  This sets a very bad precedent for the future and other Bitcoin users.

You need to take your chances of winning at trial into consideration. If there is evidence against him and the potential penalty is great then it would be better to accept a guilty plea, especially if the plea deal would likely result in no jail time.

No one ever wins at trial.

So true. When the state is out to make an example (and we know they are), it's not going to turn out well if you try to fight it. Let them make their example in a way that minimizes the destruction wreaked on your life, and move on. Bitcoin will be fine.

Sooner or later their misdeeds will come back around to bite them in the ass, it is the way of the world. No tyranny can continue forever.

Can't compare white collar crime with rape and murder.

I made no such comparison.

[TheButterZone]

Pleading guilty to a victimless crime that prohibits you from your right to self-defense is suicidal. No need to imprison someone if you can simply murder their disarmed and defenseless ass after collecting their fines.

[doggieTattoo]

I must admit I'm disappointed with you Charlie.  If you are truly innocent then you must not plead guilty to *ANY* charges that you did not commit.   We cannot permit the Federal Mafia to simply threaten everyone into submission.  This sets a very bad precedent for the future and other Bitcoin users.

You need to take your chances of winning at trial into consideration. If there is evidence against him and the potential penalty is great then it would be better to accept a guilty plea, especially if the plea deal would likely result in no jail time.

No one ever wins at trial.

George Zimmerman won at trial. I don't think the government offered him a very good plea deal if anything at all. They also did not have very good/much evidence against him, as they could not even get a grand jury to bring an indictment.

I think a jury would likely get confused if this case went to trial and would likely side with the government. This was a good idea considering the potential maximum sentence.  

[counter]

The man only has one life so I wouldn't expect him to be trying to play a Bitcoin martyr.  The feds are pro's at making people take deals they wouldn't normally take.  The system is so rigged it it is not funny, especially if you don't have a great legal team and the money to pay them..  The fact that he pleads guilty is in many ways a win for the FEDS and a loss for the little guy who got caught in the wrong place and didn't know the right people.