Ulbricht Admits Seized Bitcoins Are His and Wants Them Back

An anonymous reader writes with the latest news about the aftermath of the Silk Road shutdown "From the article: 'Ulbricht ... said in a notarised December 11 statement that he believes the virtual currency should be returned to him because Bitcoins are "not subject to seizure" by federal law. Ulbricht, 29, now admits the Bitcoin fortune is his — even though he's previously denied any wrongdoing regarding Silk Road and claimed through his lawyer that the feds arrested the wrong guy.' So not only has he now confirmed his link to the site, and confirmed the money is his, but also means that a few precedents will be set. Is it seizable? Is it just 'copying data?'" Relatedly, three alleged moderators of Silk Road were indicted on Friday.

Comments

Yeah....

[P-niiice]

I'm pretty sure I would have kept my mouth shut. The worst thing you can do is make it easier for the feds. But who knows, I've never been arrested on those charges and had a shitton of bitcoins seized.

Arrogance

[anagama]

The foolish arrogance of geeks is sometimes astounding.

Re:The master owns everything, including your *LIF

[Noryungi]

Yeah, let's tone down the hysteria a notch now, shall we?

Mr Ulbricht admitted to committing a crime, by facilitating the buying and selling of drugs on the Internet. Wrong move, but let us set this aside for a moment.

Bitcoins can be considered (and, indeed, are presented everywhere) as a currency. Hence, they can be considered as an ill-gotten gain.

While I am not a lawyer, I am pretty much certain that every country under the sun has got a law in its books that says, essentially: "Thou shall not profit from illegal activities" or some such.

This is prefectly constitutional, it respects the 4th amendment of the Constitution of the USA, and I am pretty sure it has been challenged many times in front of the Supreme Court, and upheld every time.

Since Bitcoin is a currency, and that said currency has been obtained from an illegal activity, it represents a profit from an illegal activity, and, therefore, can be and should be seized by the Federal Bureau of Investigations, a branch of the Department of Justice of the Government of the United States of America. The same thing would happen if, say, he had been paid in Euros or Yens (or any other currency, really) instead of Bitcoins.

If Mr Ulbricht is cleared of all charges - good luck with that since he pretty much admitted committing or facilitating an illegal activity - then, of course, the Bitcoins he has stashed should be returned to him by the FBI, probably with a little note attached saying: "Sorry! Here is your crypto currency" (again, good luck with that).

Should drug selling and buying be considered legal? Why not, you may have some arguments for the legalisation of drugs (See: Marijuana, legal use of), but, in the mean-time, it remains an illegal activity.

Hence, I believe Mr Ulbricht (a) will never see ''his'' Bitcoins again, (b) is about to learn a thing or two about the US legal process and (c) spend quite a number of years in a Federal Correctional Facility (or Prison). Whis is as it should be, since the guy comes off as a complete amateur.

And, while I agree that the ATF has badly bungled the whole Waco fiasco, I have zero compassion for religious nuts.

Re:Unequal treatment

[anagama]

There is no crown. In the US, the Feds seize first, worry about proof later. Civil forfeiture is big business, "policing for profit":

http://www.ij.org/policing-for-profit-the-abuse-of-civil-asset-forfeiture-4

Americans are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but civil forfeiture turns that principle on its head. With civil forfeiture, your property is guilty until you prove it innocent.

Re:The master owns everything, including your *LIF

[rgmoore]

Except that ill-gotten gains are always subject to seizure. Look up US Federal drug forfeiture laws some time. The feds can take anything that's the proceed of or used to facilitate drug crimes. It doesn't matter what form the assets are in. If the feds can prove they were bought with drug money, they can seize them. If they were used as an active part of the trade, the feds can seize them. Since the bitcoins appear to be both, it's going to be pretty easy for the feds to get them.