Miami Money-Laundering Case May Define Whether Bitcoin Is Really Money (ibtimes.com)

David Gilbert, reporting for IBTimes: Michell Espinoza, a 32-year-old computer programmer, was arrested for attempted money-laundering in 2014 when he sold $1,500 worth of bitcoin to undercover FBI agents who said they were going to use them to buy stolen credit cards. Now in a Florida courtroom, Espinoza and his lawyers are trying to get the charges dismissed on the grounds that bitcoin, under Florida law, should not be defined as actual money. (Editor's note: the source has annoying auto-playing videos. Alternatively you can use the link below.) This is thought to be the first case of its kind and the ruling by Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Teresa Mary Pooler will be watched with great interest not only in the U.S., but around the world. "This is the most fascinating thing I've heard in this courtroom in a long time," Pooler said on Friday. A ruling is not expected for several weeks yet.The report also cites the take of Charles Evans, Associate Professor of Finance and Economics at Barry University, who provided evidence on behalf of the defense and told the court that bitcoin, in his opinion, is not money. He said, "Basically, it's poker chips that people are willing to buy from you." Miami Herald has more details.

Comments

Re:All money is poker chips

[Kjella]

At the end of the day, any fiat currency is only worth whatever you think it's worth.

I wish. Unfortunately my money is only worth what other people think it's worth.

Charged with believing a story

[swm]

I have a real problem with this case.

Suppose it was an undercover drug deal. The cops sell him X grams of cocaine in exchange for $1500 in bitcoins. Then they charge him with buying drugs. When it comes to trial, he pleads that he didn't know they were cops; he never would have bought the drugs if he knew they were cops. Does this matter? Not at all. Buying drugs is illegal. It doesn't matter who he bought them from, or whether he knew they were cops.

Now suppose his attorney say OK, let's see the drugs. And the cops dutifully produce a bag of white powder, and they send it out to be tested, and the test shows that it is 100% primo Dominos 10X confectioner's sugar. And his lawyer says, "Hey! He's charged with buying drugs; where are the drugs?" And the cops say, "Oh, you know, it's such a hassle checking out drugs from the evidence locker; all this paper work; all these forms; god help you if it comes back a gram light... We just went down to store and bought some powdered sugar. But it doesn't matter: we told him it was drugs; he obviously thought it was drugs or he wouldn't have paid $1500 for it." Does this matter? Absolutely. It doesn't matter what he thought: he did not do the illegal thing that he is charged with: he did not buy drugs. He walks.

Now look at this case. The cops paid him $1500 cash for bitcoins. They told him they were going to buy stolen credit cards with the bitcoins. Now maybe, if they had actually bought stolen credit cards with the bitcoins, they could have charged him with being some kind of accessory to that crime. But they didn't. There was no crime. There were never any credit cards. There wasn't even a bag of white powder. All they've got is a story. A story that he believed. Or not. Maybe he didn't know whether it was true. Maybe he didn't care. Sure, sure, you guys want to be leet haxorz buying credit cards? You got $1500 cash you can be James Bond, you can be Tony Stark, whatever.

I do not understand how this guy gets charged in connection with a crime that did not occur.