Slashdot Mirror
Bitcoins Seized In Drug Bust
First time accepted submitter Salo2112 writes "In a case believed to be the first of its kind, federal authorities have seized a Charleston man's virtual currency due to an alleged drug law violation with possible links to a shadowy online black market. From the article: 'The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration recently posted a forfeiture notice indicating that agents had seized 11.02 Bitcoins worth $814 from 31-year-old Eric Daniel Hughes for allegedly violating the federal Controlled Substances Act. No other details were provided.'"
I'm surprised it took so long.
Free Martian Whores!
He should have used a brain wallet.
They'll have to enter the hash into the court records as evidence.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Why is every minutiae associated with Bitcoin posted on the front page here?
This is not news for nerds. Criminals will always look for ways to hide money, whether it is in hard cash, diamonds, or even bitcoin it is not new.
Stop this nonsense now.
They'll have to enter the hash into the court records as evidence.
Nothing new. I'm sure hash has been on record as evidence in drug cases before.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Ahh the joys of self-financing government departments. "We believe those assets were used in connection with a crime". Suddenly, they don't have to prove anything, they just have to seize it and it's theirs. Nice and convenient. Can they even prove where the bitcoins came from?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Did they take his legos as well?
Any BC experts want to speculate on how they seize them? ( Short of putting him in jail and impounding his PC, but even then they dont 'have' them, he just cant get to th em )
I doubt he'd be able to use the Bitcoins to pay his lawyer or buy stuff in the prison commissary.
I wonder if the DEA transferred the money to own of its own accounts, or if they merely seized a drive that contained the wallet. If the latter is the case, I wonder what will happen if there's a copy of that wallet, that now starts sending money. That'd be one hell of a way to accuse the DEA of fraud with seized goods...
Anyone under the misapprehension that the drug war is about catching scum bag drug users or dealers should watch this excellent documentary:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1276962/
You'll learn who the really big players are. Hint: it's not who you think it is ;)
Peace,
Andy.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It's a movie that states that the prison industry, law enforcement, law enforcement's suppliers, the pharmaceutical industry (not wanting just as good natural treatments on the market to compete with their over priced not as good products), governments in S. America that are getting "aid" to fight the drug war, and of course the lobbying industry.
I've read a few essays on the evils of the drug war and I'm sure I'd agree with them and just about everything they have to say - except for any hyperbole about the benefits of the now illegal substances.
I am not going to sit through 96 minutes listening to Woody Harralson, Susan Sarradon, Eminem, 50 Cent and other entertainers. It looks like a pro-drug puff piece - stick it to the Man; which I am VERY sympathetic to, but I am well beyond that kind of horsehit. This does not look informative and I have better things to do with 96 minutes that to even find out. It's not worth my time.
How about a documentary with legal scholars and investigative journalists of old (Arianna Huffington?! Please!) grilling the lobbyists, law enforcement, prosecutors, and every above as well as researching the money trail.
THAT would be interesting and informative.
BitCoin is legal tender!!
Can we at least make sure stuff is adequately summarized before it hits the front page?
You must be new here.
Can we at least make sure stuff is adequately summarized before it hits the front page?
As already said, you must be new here.
For the record, it was in South Carolina.
Umm, what the heck? When a name like "Charleston" is just given without any other qualifier, it's obviously referencing the most well-known city with that name, i.e., the one in South Carolina.
Given that the "U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration" is explicitly mentioned, the summary automatically rules out your localities in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the UK, so listing those as possible interpretations of the summary is ridiculous and ignorant.
And while, yes, there is possibly one other well-known Charleston on your list (the capital of West Virginia), the rest of the members on your list of U.S. cities are not generally known widely enough that they would be recognized by a wider audience without qualification.
I'm not from the South, nor have I lived most of my life in the southern U.S., but if I said the name "Charleston" to just about anyone I know, without further qualification, they would assume I'm talking about Charleston, SC (unless context suggested otherwise).
When someone says "New York" in an article, you don't assume they are talking about New York in Linconshire in the UK, nor do they think you might be talking about New York, Kentucky or New York, Texas. Similarly, a story about "Los Angeles" shouldn't leave the reader befuddled about whether we're talking about Los Angeles, Texas, let alone the much more significant city of Los Angeles in Chile. If you're from West Virginia, I can understand being a little irked that the South Carolinian Charleston is more famous, but just about all of the other Charleston locations you listed in the U.S. are pretty insignificant, with most of them having populations of a few hundred to a couple thousand. Heck, you even listed Charleston, Arizona and Charleston, Oklahoma, which are both freakin' ghost towns.
Next time, take two minutes and do some research by clicking the top link for "Charleston" in an internet search before pasting in an irrelevant list from Wikipedia that you didn't even bother to read.
As with everything else there's a form for that! We should charge the feds for doing paperwork for them all the damned time.
Also, they're serious about it even ignoring the face value of legal US tender to prosecute.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
When a name like "Charleston" is just given without any other qualifier, it's obviously referencing the most well-known city with that name, i.e., the one in South Carolina.
It's obvious to who? I didn't know it existed until now.
There hasn't been a Charleston in Yolo County, CA, for a long time.
there's TONS of CharlesTONS, but CharlesTOWN, Mass. is The Town! Represent!
Can we at least make sure stuff is adequately summarized before it hits the front page?
:D
I live in Amsterdam, The Netherlands (there are a few Amsterdams :-). :-).
Most people would call it Holland, but that would be like calling the U.S.A. "Dakota" (which from last week onward I have vowed to call the U.S.A
I am European, but that doesn't guarantee my knowledge of geography.
I have heard of Charleston, I believe it is a dance, and it feels southern, I would not have known it would be in South Carolina.
Oh, I guess I could use Carolina as a name for the U.S.A. as well.
I live close enough to the Charleston in TN that I have gotten used to checking whenever the word comes up without more info.
You, yourself admitted that at least one item on Kr1ll1n (579971)'s list was reasonable.
Other people are even now pointing out that what you claim was obvious is not obvious.
I supect you'll be surprised how many people who don't live in the US also don't find ANYTHING about which Charlston is largest obvious, and in fact you'll probably hear from people who only know of a handfull of the very largest cities in the US and have never heard of ANY Charleston.
Your claim that the mention of the general US Drug Enforcement Administration appearing in the summary invalidates all non-us locations is itself wrong (The US siezes assets in cases of INTERNATIONAL drug trafficing, so the summary is just assuming something is 'obvious' too - you've got a whole lot of "my side gets to declare EVERYTHING is obvious to win our Internet argument" going there.
Yet despite those issues, you're still busting someone's chops. You've jumped on somebody who 'obviously' took at least two minutes doing some research, to get the list you are declaring irrelevant. You see with your own eyes a piece of research that I feel confident took at least two minutes and your first nit-picking, obsessive compulsive act is to criticise the poster for not taking two minutes to research something. That's like me reading your post and then claiming you are 'obviously' a secret lifetime South Carolinian.
I have never met you before, but my first impression is you are the sort of pedantic fool who trys to bully people at near random to bolster his flagging self esteem, falls back on a claim of Aspergers when called on it, and you have the sort of underlying, monumental anger-management issues that make you an impossibly annoying jerk for everyone who has to deal with you day to day. In fact, that's "Obvious!".
Who is John Cabal?
http://letstalkbitcoin.com/post/53700133097/users-bitcoins-seized-by-dea
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
As I comment this is at a -1.
I would say not wanting to pay someone to violate your rights while monitoring and punishing your activities is a perfectly reasonable answer.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It's more than a third of your country's population, a good bit of the mass, and is a unique level of division within your country, since it encompasses two provinces. It would more like calling The UK "England" or "Great Britain."
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Given that the "U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration" is explicitly mentioned, the summary automatically rules out your localities in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the UK
How quaint, assuming that U.S. laws and U.S. Law Enforcement still stay within U.S. borders.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
If you are an American, you are truly one dumb motherfucker
and mean they always want to make sure the drugs are sold first, confiscating drugs cost money when it needs to be destroyed, letting the dealers sell the drugs and then seize the money provides funding
If I had the mod points I would rate you as insightful. The War on Drugs has destroyed many lives and incarcerated 2.3 million people. The documentary
“The House I Live In” points out the statistics and the aftermath of what 40 years of THIS war has done to this nation.
http://www.ebony.com/entertainment-culture/new-documentary-attacks-the-war-on-drugs-102#axzz2YOItThib
In the past, the main goal of seizing drug money (in this case, the bitcoins) has been to gain evidence in building a drug case. Namely, that the physical set of bills was "sent from" a buyer and "received by" someone in exchange for illegal narcotics. The usage of said money to buy new jerseys for the police softball team was always a perk, but ultimately not relevant.
Do you actually believe this? I find it hard to believe that anyone could be so naive. Maybe I'm just missing the sarcasm.
Or maybe you're talking about police in your home country. Here in the U.S.A. police routinely seize valuables with little or no justification, relying on the threat of violence to get what they want in the street and then relying on their privileged positions within the legal and political systems to make sure no one can do anything about it.
Departments are routinely allowed to keep 80% of the money they seize, and the totals routinely reach the millions.
From the ACLU:
The money is the point of the seizures. Any evidentiary value is a bonus.
>11.02 Bitcoins worth $814
In a case believed to be the first of its kind, the reported "street value" of the Bitcoins seems pretty accurate.
--
Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!
As a non-American, I haven't the faintest clue where in the USA Charleston might be; even the map on wikipedia doesn't help -- apart from now knowing that it is "on the coast" -- since I don't know where South Carolina is; we're not that keen on knowing your states. (I know Florida, California, Texas, Alaska, Washington, Hawaii, and that's about it. The geographically easy-to-place ones.)
Anyway, I agree with the GP in that it should at least have the state. That I can generally look up without difficulty. Nineteen Charlestons and absolutely no clue which one might be the correct one. I can click on each one of them and search for the one with the most population and/or the longest article. Horribly inefficient.
How exactly can virtual currency be seized?
But there is no need to tax in dollars. In the past taxes were collected in goods. Farmers had to hand over a part of their crops, for example. Our money system is broken "by design" (the design evolved into failure) and there is no need to keep using it, other than make the self-announced financial overlords happy. The world would be a by far better place without interest bearing fiat currencies that have to be lent into existence by some private organization.
In fact, if the government (as representative to the society) would create money, that money would have its in-build tax. For example, if the government would pay for a bridge with its own created money, it would mean that is would reward the construction workers for a job essentially done for society. This money could then circulate and the only reason to pay taxes would be to keep the amount of money and its availability in balance. Right now, we are essentially paying taxes to the financial elite and even governments suffer.
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
You, yourself admitted that at least one item on Kr1ll1n (579971)'s list was reasonable.
Yes, I did. And if his post said, "Just to clarify, the summary is ambiguous -- it means Charleston, SC. We should be more careful about this because there's also one in WV that's pretty prominent, and Wikipedia notes that there are a lot of other localities with the same name worldwide (and here's a link...)."
That would be completely reasonable, and I would have applauded his efforts in trying to make Slashdot a better place.
Instead, he ripped out a bunch of names to places from a Wikipedia list without bothering to know anything about them, without even citing the page where he got the list (so we could actually find out about them). Aside from the two Charlestons I admit are reasonable interpretations, just about every one them are either ghost towns or have populations of a few hundred people (your TN location apparently has 651). A few towns have a few thousand people.
I hold to my statement that other than making a point about the WV location, including any of these other towns as "possible" referents is simply not a rational assumption -- it's as rational as the examples I gave of thinking that New York, TX or Los Angeles, TX are being referenced by a story about "New York" or "Los Angeles," even though the TX locations only contain a handful of people.
I supect you'll be surprised how many people who don't live in the US also don't find ANYTHING about which Charlston is largest obvious, and in fact you'll probably hear from people who only know of a handfull of the very largest cities in the US and have never heard of ANY Charleston.
Of course. Then again, they can simply enter "Charleston" into a search engine, which they would have to anyway. When I type "Charleston" into a search engine that does not filter results or personalize them, I don't see a link to any "Charleston" other than SC or WV in the top 20 (and WV only has 3 in the top 20, with the top one at #9).
All of this goes to show that again, it's slightly reasonable to ask for clarification here between SC and WV (as I admitted multiple times in my post), but beyond that I see only a handful of hits for the other "Charlestons" in even the top 100 of a non-filtered search.
Your claim that the mention of the general US Drug Enforcement Administration appearing in the summary invalidates all non-us locations is itself wrong (The US siezes assets in cases of INTERNATIONAL drug trafficing
Yes, yes, I thought of that. But did you bother to actually look up any of those other "Charlestons" from around the world? You'll find that they're all basically as insignificant as the U.S. locations other than SC and WV. It's not like the summary mentioned the DEA making a bust in "London" or "Berlin" or something while referring to the lesser known U.S. cities that have those names. The summary was discussing a U.S. agency acting in a city named X, where the only two relatively large cities named X happen to be in the U.S.
Yet despite those issues, you're still busting someone's chops.
No, I'm correcting a nitpicker. There's a difference. When you set yourself up as an authority to make a correction, you should take at least a little time to make sure your information is reasonably accurate. No matter what you say, it is simply not reasonable to assume that the summary was referencing a ghost town, and the fact that those names were included in the list showed that the GP did not do his homework before declaring the summary "Horrible" (see his subject line) and then nitpicking in his own way by pasting in a list he hadn't bothered to really look at in any detail.
You've jumped on somebody who 'obviously' took at least two minutes doing some research, to get the list you are declaring irrelevant.
The list is irrelevant. It is
I followed the link in the original story (http://www.forfeiture.gov/pdf/DEA/OfficialNotification.pdf) about this seizure and was unable to find the record they're referring to. There was no entry for Eric Hughes and no mention of bitcoin at all. Has anyone been able to independently verify this story?