Slashdot Mirror
Judge Shoots Down "Bitcoin Isn't Money" Argument In Silk Road Trial
An anonymous reader writes in with the latest in the case against the alleged creator of the Silk Road, Ross Ulbricht. The government and legal community may still be arguing over whether bitcoin can be defined as "money." But the judge presiding over the landmark Silk Road drug case has declared that it's at least close enough to get you locked up for money laundering. In a ruling released Wednesday, Judge Katherine Forrest denied a motion by Ross Ulbricht, the 30-year-old alleged creator of the Silk Road billion-dollar online drug bazaar, to dismiss all criminal charges against him. Those charges include narcotics trafficking conspiracy, money laundering, and hacking conspiracy charges, as well as a "continuing criminal enterprise" charge that's better known as the "kingpin" statute used to prosecute criminal gang and cartel leaders.
Really. One would have to be extremely dense, or have lived in a cave for the last 30 years to not make the connection that Bitcoin is still a financial tool. Bitcoin's primary purpose is to traffic/launder money and goods. But it's not just bitcoin, it's also all those various game time cards you can buy at 7-11.
Bitcoin's primary purpose is to traffic/launder money and goods.
I was going to say something about people who are financial tools themselves...
However, I guess you're right. I want to be responsible for my money, and I want to be able to use it freely, without government snooping. If that makes me a money launderer, so be it. It's like those politically organized pirates that simply want to use a free Internet, rather than rape and pillage.
Bitcoin isn't even particularly anonymous. If you want to launder your coins, you need to trust a third party, which kind of ruins the point of a decentralized/free currency. There are much better cryptocurrencies out there for anonymous purposes.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
The judge dismisses the 'bitcoin is not money' portion based of a ruling that the IRS and Fed Reserve do not have the authority to define what 'money' is. (both having defined bitcoin as 'property' and not 'money') Which is all fine and good, but the US Marshal has already ruled bitcoin as property since they disposed of the seized bitcoin through a property sale. There are very particular and different rules governing the disposal of money and property. One would think the US Marshals office actions would be the statute defining action.
do you really think the US government wont have it both ways? i'm reminded of this story: "US government declares hacking an act of war, then hacks allies"
if I've learned anything in my life, it's that laws, logic and common sense dont really matter to the government or big business... unless it's convenient.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
But he's not charged with money laundering. He's charged with conspiracy to launder money. If dirty money comes in and clean money comes out then money laundering has occurred, whether or not some of the intermediate steps involved the exchange of non-monetary assets. So "I was only involved in transactions involving the exchange of non-monetary assets" is irrelevant: what matters is a) whether they were part of a larger chain of transactions to launder money; b) whether he was aware of that larger chain.