Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bitcoin Not Money, Rules Miami Judge In Dismissing Laundering Charges (miamiherald.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the make-believe dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Miami Herald: Bitcoin does not actually qualify as money, a Miami-Dade judge ruled Monday in throwing out criminal charges against a Miami Beach man charged with illegally selling the virtual currency. The defendant, Michell Espinoza, was charged with illegally selling and laundering $1,500 worth of Bitcoins to undercover detectives who told him they wanted to use the money to buy stolen credit-card numbers. But Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Teresa Mary Pooler ruled that Bitcoin was not backed by any government or bank, and was not "tangible wealth" and "cannot be hidden under a mattress like cash and gold bars." "The court is not an expert in economics, however, it is very clear, even to someone with limited knowledge in the area, the Bitcoin has a long way to go before it the equivalent of money," Pooler wrote in an eight-page order. The judge also wrote that Florida law -- which says someone can be charged with money laundering if they engage in a financial transaction that will "promote" illegal activity -- is way too vague to apply to Bitcoin. "This court is unwilling to punish a man for selling his property to another, when his actions fall under a statute that is so vaguely written that even legal professionals have difficulty finding a singular meaning," she wrote. Espinoza's case is believed to be the first money-laundering prosecution involving Bitcoin.

150 comments

  1. use Bitcoin in your laundry by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    whites are whiter brights are brighter says Judge Pooler

    1. Re:use Bitcoin in your laundry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tide comes in, stains go out. You can't explain that!

  2. It's not money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    It's only a symbolic representation of value. A bitcoin doesn't have _real_ value, the way, say, a 10 dollar bill does.

    1. Re:It's not money by RubberDogBone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's only a symbolic representation of value. A bitcoin doesn't have _real_ value, the way, say, a 10 dollar bill does.

      Cash money has no real value either. It has value only because a lot of people agree that it has value. Otherwise it is just some slips of colored paper.

       

      --
      Sig for hire.
    2. Re: It's not money by mad7777 · · Score: 2

      I assume you're being facetious.

      --
      Might makes right irrelevant.
    3. Re:It's not money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's only a symbolic representation of value. A bitcoin doesn't have _real_ value, the way, say, a 10 dollar bill does.

      Irony.

      It's not a hot metal thing used to de-wrinkle your clothes.

    4. Re:It's not money by alvinrod · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The same is true for most non-fiat currencies though. Sure you can always use gold or silver industrially, but it's not worth much otherwise as it's just some shiny metal. You could hypothetically make some kind of money backed by the entirety of all commodities or other human economic activity, but good look accounting for all of it accurately. Fiat currencies are largely a good enough approximation as long as you don't give some idiot control of the printing press or let the people decide to vote themselves bread and circuses without working to produce any of it.

    5. Re:It's not money by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Cash money has no real value either. It has value only because a lot of people agree that it has value.

      The value of everything comes from the agreement of a lot of people.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re: It's not money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Money has no value other than what we all assign to it and agree on. Bitcoin is no different.

    7. Re: It's not money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Money has no other value than what *powerful people* decide it is. *You* don't get to decide anything.

    8. Re:It's not money by Bearhouse · · Score: 1

      In many parts of the world, and especially in India, gold is indeed widely used as an "ultimate" store of value.
      Go to Dubai and you'll see the immegrant workers buying "genuine guaranteed" ingots to take back home

    9. Re:It's not money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If only we had massive machines keeping track of the world economy every possible moment in nano second scale time, we could totally keep track of the entire worlds economic activity.

      Oh well, such machines are clearly impossible pipe dreams; better just listen to what the rich bankers with all the money tell us what that money is worth.

    10. Re: It's not money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, it's Democratic party. Republicans are members of the Republican party; Democrats are members of the Democratic party.

    11. Re:It's not money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the value of everything is relative to every single individual person. If I think a rock is worth a bushel of corn, then that rock is worth a bushel of corn to me, by definition.

    12. Re:It's not money by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Ummm... that is everywhere in the world. There is a reason the Federal Reserve reserves gold along with every government in the world. People who get burned on gold get burned because they buy while the market is "booming." This is actually extremely uncommon. During the recession you'd have been a very happy man if you kept your wealth in gold.

      There are certainly investments which grow faster buy they also carry a lot more risk.

      All that said there is another reason people get burned with both dollars and gold on a regular basis. Counterfeiting. Counterfeiting is mathematically proven to be impossible with bitcoin and that is why it has innate value. That is also why the banks are trying to build systems based on its technology. All this "I can't hold it in my hand" people are just luddites.

    13. Re:It's not money by Ranbot · · Score: 1

      ...Sure you can always use gold or silver industrially, but it's not worth much otherwise as it's just some shiny metal.

      In many parts of the world, and especially in India, gold is indeed widely used as an "ultimate" store of value.
      Go to Dubai and you'll see the immegrant workers buying "genuine guaranteed" ingots to take back home

      Alvinrod is saying is that gold or silver doesn't have inherent worth because it doesn't meet any fundamental requirements for human survival (food, water, shelter, heat, clothes, etc.). You can't eat gold. You can't drink gold. Gold is not an appropriate material to make clothes or shelter. You can't warm yourself with gold. So, a person must be part of a functioning society that provides the minimum for human survival before it can ascribe any value to a rare shiny metal. Or another way to think of it... if you were stranded alone on an island with no hope of rescue and trying to survive, which would you prefer to have: a handful of gold or a handful of viable seeds for crops? Obviously the latter, because outside of society gold has no value.

    14. Re:It's not money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That "slip of colored paper" has the backing of the federal government. That's the difference.

    15. Re:It's not money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if the masses did vote themselves "free food, housing, health care and transportation" what then?
      Somewhere along the line people must realize that money is nothing more than a way to make some people more special than others. I work 50 or so hours a week and I get paid $X per week, but you can't actually sell anything I do because it's all intangible services. You can argue that my "time" is worth $X per hour, but then if I work more hours does that mean I'm worth less? Would I work fewer hours if it meant my task wasn't completed? Do I get "paid" for "work" I do for myself? How about for my family? My friends?

      In the long run all of the work we perform is intangible and the so-called wealth we create isn't in goods or services, but in tasks completed. Even if I walk down the street and pick up a candy wrapper that is a task and I should be compensated for it.

      Time to grow up, humans. Stop pretending the sky-santa blessed the shiny metal stones and made them magic that we can trust.

    16. Re:It's not money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't drink gold?

      Ummmm.....Goldschlager?!

    17. Re:It's not money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, so if you were stranded alone on an island..... and an angry, hungry wolf was slowly stalking you....

      Which would you rather have in your hand to throw at it: a big, heavy gold nugget, or a handful of viable seeds?

      My point: you can say gold has less value than something...but not that it has NO value.

      It makes a nice paperweight on my desk too!

    18. Re:It's not money by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      Gold is not an appropriate material to make clothes or shelter.

      You could if it weren't so rare. Gold can easily be extruded into fine thread and woven into cloth, or hammered into thin sheets to make walls or shingles. It's a very versatile material. We don't use it this way because an all-gold suit would require at least a few million dollars' worth of gold, not because the material properties of gold make it unsuitable.

      Or another way to think of it... if you were stranded alone on an island with no hope of rescue and trying to survive, which would you prefer to have: a handful of gold or a handful of viable seeds for crops?

      If this is a one-time either/or proposition, obviously the seeds. Gold has no nutritional value and little else matters when faced with the prospect of starvation. Given a more flexible situation, however, I might be willing to trade some of those seeds for an equivalent volume of gold for the sake of making tools. As a raw material it's highly ductile, malleable, conductive, and corrosion-resistant; I'm sure I could find some practical use for it even without any prospect of trade.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    19. Re: It's not money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and pedants are members of the pedantic party?

    20. Re:It's not money by Ranbot · · Score: 1

      Because I'm in a mood to argue..

      Gold is not an appropriate material to make clothes or shelter.

      You could if it weren't so rare.

      Gold is rare. The argument is null.

      Gold can easily be extruded into fine thread and woven...not because the material properties of gold make it unsuitable.

      You need to define "easily." Because most people don't have spare metal extruders lying around or the parts and skill to assemble one. You need a functioning society with relatively sophisticated infrastracture to be extruding metals. Which proves the earlier point that gold has little to no value for basic human needs and only develops value within the context of a society.

      Or another way to think of it... if you were stranded alone on an island with no hope of rescue and trying to survive, which would you prefer to have: a handful of gold or a handful of viable seeds for crops?

      If this is a one-time either/or proposition, obviously the seeds. Gold has no nutritional value and little else matters when faced with the prospect of starvation.

      Exactly.

      Given a more flexible situation, however, I might be willing to trade some of those seeds for an equivalent volume of gold for the sake of making tools. As a raw material it's highly ductile, malleable, conductive, and corrosion-resistant; I'm sure I could find some practical use for it even without any prospect of trade.

      You're only proving my point that gold only develops value in the context of a society/economy (i.e. your trade) that can provide the basics of survival and has the sophistication to turn the gold into a useful tool.

      And consider this... if the world spiraled into post-apocalyptic anarchy tomorrow, people would be trading a handfuls of gold for a handfuls of bullets in a heartbeat. So, how much inherent value does gold have? When discussing inherent value of objects if you're not thinking like a doomsday prepper, then you are missing the point! ;-)

    21. Re:It's not money by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Gold and silver make good *coinage* due to their chemical properties, but a lot of people somehow conflate that into the idea that gold and silver have intrinsic worth.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    22. Re:It's not money by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      And that's because, from centuries of historical practice, a very large number of people think gold is valuable beyond its physical properties. It's just the same as US dollars: both have value because people think it has value, and there's plenty of evidence to show that people will continue to value USD and gold.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    23. Re:It's not money by swillden · · Score: 1

      In many parts of the world, and especially in India, gold is indeed widely used as an "ultimate" store of value. Go to Dubai and you'll see the immegrant workers buying "genuine guaranteed" ingots to take back home

      Yep, it has worth because lots of people believe it does. Same as fiat currencies... gold just has a longer history of being considered valuable, so people think less about the fact that its actual value, in terms of stuff you can make/do with it, isn't actually that large.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    24. Re:It's not money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...Sure you can always use gold or silver industrially, but it's not worth much otherwise as it's just some shiny metal.

      In many parts of the world, and especially in India, gold is indeed widely used as an "ultimate" store of value.
      Go to Dubai and you'll see the immegrant workers buying "genuine guaranteed" ingots to take back home

      Alvinrod is saying is that gold or silver doesn't have inherent worth because it doesn't meet any fundamental requirements for human survival (food, water, shelter, heat, clothes, etc.). You can't eat gold. You can't drink gold. Gold is not an appropriate material to make clothes or shelter. You can't warm yourself with gold. So, a person must be part of a functioning society that provides the minimum for human survival before it can ascribe any value to a rare shiny metal. Or another way to think of it... if you were stranded alone on an island with no hope of rescue and trying to survive, which would you prefer to have: a handful of gold or a handful of viable seeds for crops? Obviously the latter, because outside of society gold has no value.

      He actually made the point it's easier to trade paper dollars than to trade gold, which gives paper dollars some greater intrinsic value. On an island like that, both are fairly worthless. And a lot of people disagree with him on how easy it is to use gold to buy things

    25. Re:It's not money by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      Gold is rare. The argument is null.

      The situation described was that one was offered a handful of gold or a handful of seeds. Under those circumstances gold could not be considered rare. In any case its rarity is orthogonal to its utility as a raw material.

      You're only proving my point that gold only develops value in the context of a society/economy (i.e. your trade) that can provide the basics of survival and has the sophistication to turn the gold into a useful tool.

      The same could be said of the seeds—or did you think that the knowledge of how to grow, preserve, store, and prepare a proper harvest from a handful of seeds somehow comes by instinct? That, too, is a form of technology learned by society over a very long period of trial and error. Without that knowledge acquired from society you might manage a single meager meal, provided the seeds are of an edible variety.

      You need to define "easily." Because most people don't have spare metal extruders lying around or the parts and skill to assemble one.

      It doesn't take a great deal of capital equipment to draw wire, and gold has a relatively low melting point. A deserted island would most likely have everything you need provided it's survivable at all. Gold sheets are even simpler and can be hammered out with rocks if you're patient enough.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
  3. Even if you disagree with the judge . . . by mmell · · Score: 5, Interesting
    . . . (which I don't, by the way) . . .

    let me get this straight - if someone offers to sell me something of value, if I somehow become aware of intended wrongdoing on their part - say, they've said they're raising money to hire a hit-man, or they're planning on buying a couple kilos of tar opium, whatever - I may not complete my transaction with them despite the legality of our specific transaction because I suspect they may use their gains in an illegal manner? In effect, I must deprive them of their lawful right to seek to do business with me without due process of law.

    Does this mean contributors to political campaigns are lawfully culpable for the potentially illegal actions of the political candidates?

    1. Re:Even if you disagree with the judge . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No. Not only must you know that your transaction will be used to carryout an illegal act you must also intend that it promote that illegal act.

      I guess in your hitman scenario, we'll be general here since there are numerous parts to the statute, buying a item from a person and knowing that they might do something illegal with the proceeds isn't enough. You'd probably be convicted if you were buying the item for $100 and the guy tells you he needs $500 for a hitman and then you say, "here, I'll help you out. I'll give you $500." Technically, you just bought something but you were giving money to the person with the intent that an illegal act take place. It's not a perfect scenario, but I'm just trying to illustrate the point not provide a complete proof. For further, the applicable statute is F.S. Ch. 896.

    2. Re:Even if you disagree with the judge . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's an interesting question. If someone comes up to you and says "I'm going to go commit this crime, and your services that I am purchasing right now will help with that". Well, not reporting that feels like a crime, maybe it even should be, somehow. But would you word that fairly? If the actual services you provide are not illegal then what, exactly, should your legal responsibility be?

      I guess it's just weird to begin with that anyone would say that. The dumbass in question should probably have been tipped off about that. "Huh, that's a weird thing to declare. Like going into a gun store and telling the clerk that you're going to use the gun for a mass shooting. I should really suspect something about this." But since not reporting such isn't a crime currently he shouldn't be charged with anything.

    3. Re:Even if you disagree with the judge . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The general thrust is: You can't help people commit crimes.

      In many countries (and I will probably now be disappointed to find that the US isn't one of them) you don't get to just roll up with $5 million of bank notes in a truck and buy something expensive like land or a company. If you do that, and later somebody asks the lawyers "So, what's with the $5M in cash?" and they shrug and say "I didn't ask" they lose their licenses and their offices are crawling with investigators. Even if it turns out you got that $5M through some unlikely but entirely legal means, their failure to ask reasonable questions makes them guilty.

      In my country if you ask the "bank of mum and dad" to help pay for your first house, they need to write a letter explaining who they are, and why this big sum of unexpected money appeared with no strings attached, because otherwise your lender, or your lawyers, or both will freak out and everything stalls while this mysterious money is explained. If instead of "mum and dad" the money comes from "Uncle Albert" who like, isn't actually an uncle but he knew you from when you were a baby, expect that to get crawled over even more. Who is this "Uncle Albert" dude? Does he end up with control over the property in practice despite you owning it on paper? Where did _he_ get the money from?

      Right now in the press you might see fuss about a company called British Home Stores or BHS. The guy who owned it sold it to someone they knew was a fly-by-night terrible business person, so that he could walk away saying it was fine when he left. It collapsed, as he will have known it probably would. Did the politicians say "Oh, well, you sold it, so not your problem" ? No, they're demanding he pay off its pension fund and they're tearing into the other directors, the auditors, and so on. Because all those people had a DUTY not to just say "Oh, whatever, if the owner wants to sell it to some scumbag let him".

    4. Re:Even if you disagree with the judge . . . by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Knowledge of a crime without reporting it is called accessory. Even if they tell you about the crime after they've done it you are still an accessory after the fact.

      So yes, if someone tells you've they've committed a crime or are going to commit a crime you are obligated to report it to law enforcement and refuse the transaction. To think otherwise would either make you extremely naive or stupid.

      This is basic common knowledge, you can't help people commit crimes. It's ok to be ignorant of their crime (but you need to understand you may have your profits taken away) but if they tell you about intended law breaking and you proceed then you are an accessory to their crime. And in some states if that was a felony you are now also on the hook for everything they did because in most US states all participants in a felony can be convicted of every criminal action. For example, if they'd committed a robbery and killed someone in the progress and you laundered the money you could be charged with murder.

    5. Re:Even if you disagree with the judge . . . by vakuona · · Score: 1

      But, can they gift me bitcoins (not money) instead?

    6. Re:Even if you disagree with the judge . . . by jon3k · · Score: 4, Informative

      Knowledge of a crime without reporting it is called accessory. Even if they tell you about the crime after they've done it you are still an accessory after the fact.

      Not exactly. You'd have to help conceal the crime to be charged with accessory after the fact.

      http://criminal.findlaw.com/cr...

    7. Re:Even if you disagree with the judge . . . by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Conducting a monetary transaction intended to conceal the proceeds of a crime is the very definition of Accessory after the fact. His question was about a monetary transaction where he's been told that it's the result of a crime.

      As a general rule you are not required in some states to report crimes you are aware of (though in some you are, know your states law!). But if you assist the perpetrators in the crime, such as through concealment or laundering of funds you are an accessory after the fact. Your link doesn't explain very well that accessory after the fact doesn't just apply to concealing the crime (it implies this) as laundering the funds or assisting in disposal of assets where you know of the crime makes you an accessory. You can be an accessory by doing anything that assists the criminals in their crime.

    8. Re:Even if you disagree with the judge . . . by jon3k · · Score: 2
      I think your original post was sufficiently vague as to just be incorrect. I'm just clarifying that it takes more than just being aware of a crime, which your original post stated.

      So yes, if someone tells you've they've committed a crime or are going to commit a crime you are obligated to report it to law enforcement and refuse the transaction.

      That's certainly not universally true.

    9. Re:Even if you disagree with the judge . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you

    10. Re:Even if you disagree with the judge . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are absolutely wrong.

    11. Re:Even if you disagree with the judge . . . by BKX · · Score: 1

      You are never obliged to report crimes to the police unless you're a mandatory reporter (basically, doctors, social workers and teachers) and the crime is on the mandatory reporting list (child abuse, and that's about it). If you're not a mandatory reporter, then you don't have to report anything for any reason ever. It's actually constitutional, by the way. It's part of the fifth amendment. Basically, the fifth amendment means you can always keep your mouth shut in case you accidentally say something incriminating. In fact, the mandatory reporting requirement has never been tested, and I think is likely unconstitutional.

      Additionally, your understanding of accessory is a bit off. To be an accessory, you must know about the crime and provide material aid toward the commission of that crime and there has to be an accessory statute for that crime. For example, if you give a ride to a dude who then commits a murder but you didn't know about the murder, you're fine. If you pick him up afterwards, find out about the murder, and hide him, you're now an accessory after the fact. Another example, you stand in front of a camera so your friend can shoplift, you're not an accessory. Why? Because there's not a statute making being an accessory to shoplifting a crime (in most states; some states have a more general accessory to a crime law which would cover it). You may, however, be guilty of something else like conspiracy to commit fraud, or may even be considered a shoplifter under some statutes, but not an accessory. Final example, you find out about a friend committing a robbery and don't report it to the cops. You're not an accessory, since there's no material aid.

    12. Re:Even if you disagree with the judge . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What load of BS. By the way I am going on a crime spree of stealing underwear. They say there is a lot of profit in it. Aren't you going to report it? According to your logic you are already an accessory!

    13. Re:Even if you disagree with the judge . . . by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      " going into a gun store and telling the clerk that you're going to use the gun for a mass shooting" back in college, a friend and myself actually said that. The guy asked us what we were thinking of doing (probably wondering what animal we planned to hunt), and he straight-manned "oh, shoot into crowds." Didn't even phase the guy. But this in Oklahoma, at a pawn shop so....

    14. Re:Even if you disagree with the judge . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not true everywhere.

      I bought my house with a 100k gift from my parents.

      Not one fuck was given. I said to the bank: "I have a gift from my parents" the bank said: "Deposit money here plz". No letters, no questions no investigators no cavity searches.

      Sure; 100k might not be "much" in the grand scheme, but it's over the reporting threshold (10k) in my country.

      They reported the money; and presumably looked at the surname on the account holder of the sender; and the surname of the recipient account (the loan account in my name) and got on with their lives.

    15. Re:Even if you disagree with the judge . . . by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      and the crime is on the mandatory reporting list (child abuse, and that's about it)

      There are lots of things, multiple lists, but they only apply to certain jobs. In addition to crimes involving children, often elder and disabled abuse. Engineers are required to report certain things that create physical dangers. A lot of types of licensed inspectors or auditors have lists of things they are required to report if they find it. Some types of accountants.

    16. Re:Even if you disagree with the judge . . . by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      In my country if you ask the "bank of mum and dad" to help pay for your first house, they need to write a letter explaining who they are, and why this big sum of unexpected money appeared with no strings attached, because otherwise your lender, or your lawyers, or both will freak out and everything stalls while this mysterious money is explained.

      Really? Not my experience.

      Everything had to be aggregated in one place before it was transferred wholesale to the seller. Naturally, the aggregation came from a bunch of different places, because it was quite a lot of money.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    17. Re:Even if you disagree with the judge . . . by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      How does your anecdote invalidate his claims? You told the bank where the money came from (even when you claimed that no one cared), they registered it and some one in the back checked that the money actually where sent from the accounts mentioned (i.e from your parents to you) and that this was money that your parents had access to legally.

      If you could have just appeared in the bank and threw 100k GBP on the table, refused to disclose where the money came from and they still would be ok with that then you would have had a point, but that is not what happened.

    18. Re:Even if you disagree with the judge . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... political campaigns are lawfully culpable for the potentially illegal actions of the political candidates ...

      If the contribution is made after the candidate promised to commit an illegal act, then the technical answer is 'yes'. There are a few loopholes: 1) "It's not illegal when the president does it." This 'above the law' attitude may also apply to select politicians; 2) A promise made at certain times is unenforceable, as many mistresses discover when they try to cash-in a promise made in the bedroom. A politician's soap-box may have the same worthlessness.

    19. Re:Even if you disagree with the judge . . . by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      I think you missed the point.

      "... was charged with illegally selling and laundering $1,500 worth of Bitcoins to undercover detectives who told him they wanted to use the money to buy stolen credit-card numbers."

      The assumption here by detectives was that merely claiming the proceeds would be used for illegal activity made the transaction money laundering.

    20. Re:Even if you disagree with the judge . . . by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      "To think otherwise would either make you extremely naive or stupid."

      No it wouldn't, but regardless it wouldn't make you a money launderer.

      "but you need to understand you may have your profits taken away"

      Some more hand waving. Profits?

      "For example, if they'd committed a robbery and killed someone in the progress and you laundered the money you could be charged with murder."

      Just for example ;)

      If you loaned your friend some cash to buy gas for his car and he subsequently drove 30 mph over the speed limit (a felony) then you "could be charged" with that felony. Sounds reasonable. How dare you promote the endangerment of the public!

    21. Re:Even if you disagree with the judge . . . by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      "Conducting a monetary transaction intended to conceal the proceeds of a crime..."

      You are assuming that the transaction is money laundering when that condition has not been met.

      "...is the very definition of Accessory after the fact."

      It's the "very definition"!?! Who's being "extremely naive or stupid" now.

      "His question was about a monetary transaction where he's been told that it's the result of a crime."

      You are completely off the deep end here.

    22. Re:Even if you disagree with the judge . . . by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      The general thrust is: You can't help people commit crimes.

      In many countries (and I will probably now be disappointed to find that the US isn't one of them) you don't get to just roll up with $5 million of bank notes in a truck and buy something expensive like land or a company. If you do that, and later somebody asks the lawyers "So, what's with the $5M in cash?" and they shrug and say "I didn't ask" they lose their licenses and their offices are crawling with investigators. Even if it turns out you got that $5M through some unlikely but entirely legal means, their failure to ask reasonable questions makes them guilty.

      In my country if you ask the "bank of mum and dad" to help pay for your first house, they need to write a letter explaining who they are, and why this big sum of unexpected money appeared with no strings attached, because otherwise your lender, or your lawyers, or both will freak out and everything stalls while this mysterious money is explained. If instead of "mum and dad" the money comes from "Uncle Albert" who like, isn't actually an uncle but he knew you from when you were a baby, expect that to get crawled over even more. Who is this "Uncle Albert" dude? Does he end up with control over the property in practice despite you owning it on paper? Where did _he_ get the money from?

      Right now in the press you might see fuss about a company called British Home Stores or BHS. The guy who owned it sold it to someone they knew was a fly-by-night terrible business person, so that he could walk away saying it was fine when he left. It collapsed, as he will have known it probably would. Did the politicians say "Oh, well, you sold it, so not your problem" ? No, they're demanding he pay off its pension fund and they're tearing into the other directors, the auditors, and so on. Because all those people had a DUTY not to just say "Oh, whatever, if the owner wants to sell it to some scumbag let him".

      It's not just country (I assume you are not in the US.) My wife and I live in Florida, and when we bought our first home, we had to write letters to the bank (BoA) explaining all our sources of income or wealth, including a generous cash gift we got from our in-laws. And before we got a loan with BoA we were trying to get one via NACA, and that organization had us write regular letters explaining our cash flows (which got annoying at times since we traveled abroad every year to see my in-laws, which incurred in money transfers between US and Japan's accounts.)

      If someone gets away with paying a property with cash without even writing a notarized letter explaining the source, I suspect a crooked hand (and the seller can be in for a world of pain.)

      But that's for us plebeians. For those on top, they can get away with that kind of shit and more. Land of the free and home of the brave I guess....

    23. Re:Even if you disagree with the judge . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gun shop owners routinely ask and routinely inform the Feds if they have an issue. Isn't interesting that the Orlando shooter was flagged by the gun shop owner but nothing was done?

    24. Re:Even if you disagree with the judge . . . by jofas · · Score: 1

      Banks do not care unless someone is looking. They will happily house all of your money as long as auditors are satisfied.

      Bank motives are universal. Some laws may scrutinize their actions more, but the aim of a bank is to hold and make money. They don't give a shit in GBP, USD or TSH in Zanzibar.

    25. Re:Even if you disagree with the judge . . . by judoguy · · Score: 1
      I'm ordained clergy. If someone told me in a counseling session that he was going to commit robbery or murder, I have no obligation to report it to anyone and am in fact directed not to. We are not law enforcement.

      Where I live in the U.S., the only things required by law to report are child and dependent adult abuse.

      --
      Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
    26. Re:Even if you disagree with the judge . . . by Zygnal · · Score: 1

      You've missed the distinction between
      "we got a loan with BoA"
      and
      "paying a property with cash"

      You're being grilled about sources of income so that BofA can judge how likely you are to be able to make your payments. In particular, without special help from others.

      Either scenario, the seller gets a check for the selling price. Empty-nesters downsizing are often able to pay for a smaller house in full without needing a new loan, so this is hardly rare or crooked.

    27. Re:Even if you disagree with the judge . . . by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      The bank does not care yes but they have to report every transaction to your national version of the SEC and they are fined quite heavily (they can also loose their banking license) if it's found out that they did not fully report and trace the transaction. So what the bank cares are does not care about is quite irrelevant.

    28. Re:Even if you disagree with the judge . . . by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      I'm in the USA btw. I didn't have to write a letter, but IIRC had to give a bit more account details upon getting my mortgage since I had recently moved money _between my own accounts_ to make the down payment.

    29. Re:Even if you disagree with the judge . . . by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      It can get silly. When I was going back to grad school, we bought a house. I had to write letters explaining that I didn't quit my job and go to grad school to get benefits from a housing program, and exactly why, as a two-adult family, we only needed one car.

      I don't think they cared much about our reasons, just that we had some.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    30. Re:Even if you disagree with the judge . . . by swillden · · Score: 1

      The reason banks care is that they want to make sure you didn't borrow your downpayment from another bank. So the red flag for them is not the amount or the claimed source, but how recently you got the money. If the cash has been sitting in your bank account for several months -- and doesn't show up as a loan on your credit report -- they're happy to assume it's yours.

      So, if the AC's parents gave him the 100K and it sat in his account for a few months, the bank probably wouldn't ask many questions about it. Twice I've used the proceeds of stock sales as part of a downpayment. I sold the stock just a few weeks before the purchase so the lenders *did* question the source of the money and I had to provide documentation to show that it was from a stock sale.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    31. Re:Even if you disagree with the judge . . . by swillden · · Score: 1

      The general thrust is: You can't help people commit crimes.

      True, but if you do help someone commit a crime, then you should be prosecuted for conspiracy to commit a crime, not money laundering. This guy was prosecuted for money laundering and the judge said "this ain't money laundering". If they want to prosecute him for conspiracy, they may have more luck. My guess is they went with money laundering because they thought it was easier to prove or because it had heftier penalties.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    32. Re: Even if you disagree with the judge . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Something was done. A report was written and properly filed.

    33. Re:Even if you disagree with the judge . . . by michael_wojcik · · Score: 1
      Same here - for my most recent mortgage. The underwriters wanted verification of the source of the down payment, even though it was an account in my name.

      That wasn't the case for my previous mortgages, but underwriting has gotten much more strict in the US since 2008.

  4. Right ruling, wrong reasons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "The defendant, Michell Espinoza, was charged with illegally selling and laundering $1,500 worth of Bitcoins to undercover detectives who told him they wanted to use the money to buy stolen credit-card numbers. "

    Basically they were giving him cash for bitcoins they could use to buy stolen goods.

    "Laundering" here meaning that the bitcoins would hide/obfuscate the transactions. But laundering money doesn't *mean* that. To launder the money the reverse would've had to have happened, using the stolen credit cards to buy bitcoins to get cash that couldn't be traced back.

    It's like saying he was laundering money because they were going to give him $1000 to convert to Yen that we were going to use to buy stolen goods. I don't see how bitcoin being a real "monetary instrument" or more akin to "poker chips" applies here because anybody who's played Fallout knows that bottlecaps are just as much a monetary instrument - It's whatever a group of people agree on the value of.

    1. Re:Right ruling, wrong reasons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder how this ruling will impact the prosecution of the case against the KAT owner/admin that was allegedly money laundering (and had bitcoin related/type activity.)

    2. Re:Right ruling, wrong reasons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What he really needed was some sort of charitable looking foundation that would have accepted the donation.

  5. Even if it is money, I get it.... by avandesande · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If someone comes into my store and wants to change a 20$ bill for rolls of quarters and tells me they are going to use them to buy something illegal... do I have some kind of obligation not to make the transaction? It seems like a really shaky and bizarre way to entrap someone.

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
    1. Re:Even if it is money, I get it.... by Creepy · · Score: 4, Informative

      I believe the correct answer is not only do you not change the money, you are obliged to contact the police and report the person. Knowingly changing the money could make you an accessory to a crime (I believe they have to tell you the crime they intend to commit).

      Incidentally, Bitcoin probably can't be considered legal tender - it would violate the Constitution, which allows only Congress to print money and denies states the right to have their own currency. It does fall into a category not thought of by the founding fathers, though, which is non-printed money (so Bitcoin basically is a loophole).

    2. Re:Even if it is money, I get it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose that non-conforming exhaust system I bought COULD be used as a piece of art. I didn't actually SAY i would install it on a car even tho it asked what car it was for.

      Same as buying a bong was legal as long as you didn't call it a bong cause then it's not.

    3. Re:Even if it is money, I get it.... by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      I suppose that non-conforming exhaust system I bought COULD be used as a piece of art. I didn't actually SAY i would install it on a car even tho it asked what car it was for.

      Same as buying a bong was legal as long as you didn't call it a bong cause then it's not.

      Thankfully, that is no longer illegal here in Oregon. Now at the smoke shops, they can freely refer to their bongs as bongs, and tokers as tokers. And on that note, the vaporizor should be warmed up, so now for tonight's first 420 moment. :D

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    4. Re:Even if it is money, I get it.... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I believe the correct answer is not only do you not change the money, you are obliged to contact the police and report the person.

      Yes and no respectively. But if the cops ask you, you have to answer honestly or you're an accessory... unless they're asking about your spouse, then you don't have to answer. Whee!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Even if it is money, I get it.... by Tokolosh · · Score: 1

      The US Constitution:

      Section. 8.

      The Congress shall have Power...

      To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin...

      Section. 10.

      No State shall ... coin Money; ...; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts....

      My take: The federal government has been granted to power to coin money and make it legal tender, but has not been granted a monopoly. Nothing in the Constitution prevents the People (not the States) from coining money.

      --
      Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    6. Re:Even if it is money, I get it.... by BKX · · Score: 2

      You are never obliged to report crimes to the police unless you're a mandatory reporter (basically, doctors, social workers and teachers) and the crime is on the mandatory reporting list (child abuse, and that's about it). If you're not a mandatory reporter, then you don't have to report anything for any reason ever. It's actually constitutional, by the way. It's part of the fifth amendment. Basically, the fifth amendment means you can always keep your mouth shut in case you accidentally say something incriminating. In fact, the mandatory reporting requirement has never been tested, and I think is likely unconstitutional.

    7. Re:Even if it is money, I get it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Legal tender means that in the US if someone has a debt he is permitted to pay it in USD, a court will not require him to pay dongs or rand. That's irrelevant to whether or not Bitcoins are money.

      This isn't really a story about Bitcoins, it's a story about whether or not it's illegal to perform a business transaction where one party says he intends to commit a crime afterwards.

    8. Re:Even if it is money, I get it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      - please exchange this $20 for quarters
      - I am obligated to ask you if you have anything illegal in mind
      - going to spend it crack and whores
      - I refuse to carry out your money laundering transaction, and will be reporting it to police!

    9. Re:Even if it is money, I get it.... by Boronx · · Score: 1

      The courts will find that if the states can't print money, then people can't either.

      --
      Play Command HQ online
    10. Re:Even if it is money, I get it.... by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      Your right, in the sense that the general rule of "The constitution is the rules for the government to follow, not the people" (And the language also appears explicit).

      However for the government to *recognize* the bitcoins as money, it enters a huge grey area where its not US money (because constitution), but whos money IS it?

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    11. Re:Even if it is money, I get it.... by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      Incidentally, Bitcoin probably can't be considered legal tender - it would violate the Constitution, which allows only Congress to print money and denies states the right to have their own currency. It does fall into a category not thought of by the founding fathers, though, which is non-printed money (so Bitcoin basically is a loophole).

      There's always a lot of confusion when the term "legal tender" comes up. "Legal tender" is NOT the same as "valid money" or "valid currency" or whatever. "Legal tender" in the U.S. means precisely one thing -- it must be accepted for all debts, public or private.

      And what that means is -- if you incur debt to someone, they must accept "legal tender" to repay that debt. If you don't pay and they sue you, the court can order payment -- and they must accept dollars.

      Things "legal tender" is NOT: (1) "Legal tender" is NOT necessarily the only possible thing you can use to pay for something. A purchase contract can specify that you give me lunch in exchange for two goats. That doesn't make goats "money" or "legal tender." (2) "Legal tender" does NOT have to be accepted as payment for a debt not yet incurred, which means no business has to accept legal tender for a purchase for example. A business in the U.S. can legally say it will only take credit, no cash please. Or they can say "we only accept goats for purchases."

      There are plenty of examples in normal life of "substitute currencies" or "substitute money" created and perfectly legal. If you go to a casino and they give you a stack of chips that are required to be used for betting or for paying for services within the casino, they are creating a de facto "in-house currency" that is perfectly legal. If you go to a county fair, and they insist you pay for rides and food or whatever in "tickets" rather than cash, they have also created "de facto money" to be used at that event. It serves as a standard medium of exchange for transactions.

      States can also create money in a "workaround" by issuing currency through banks, and many states did that for the first 75 years or so of the U.S. Any private entity can do so.

      Anyhow, here's the problem with all alternative currencies in the U.S. -- you have to pay the IRS in dollars. That effectively makes any alternative currency a pain to use except in limited short-term circumstances (like casino betting or fair tickets). Why? Because all alternative currencies -- whether coins or paper or goats -- are ultimately taxable property. And if you actually use an alternative currency that "catches on" and is used widely, you'll have to report any profits and pay taxes in dollars to the IRS.

      So if you accept only goats as payment, you'll need to assess the value of those goats. Once you and all the towns in your area start using goats, they are bound to fluctuate in value, so you need to start keeping track of capital gains (in dollars!) that occur between transactions and pay taxes to the IRS. If you're printing your own money, you can get around this problem by tying the value to the U.S. dollar (thus ensuring no changes in value for taxable purposes), but then there's little justification for your alternative currency.... except in circumscribed venues for convenience. (The fair tickets simplify things -- all the stands and ride operators don't have to have a lot of cash on hand to make change, people don't waste time making change for each small transaction, etc.)

      So, in sum -- yes, it's true that Bitcoin probably can't be "legal tender" under the Constitution (which only means stuff like you can't force your bank to accept Bitcoin for your mortgage payments). It may in fact be used as "money" or "currency" in other circumstances, but it probably doesn't fit the vague legal definition of "money" in "money laundering" laws (which tends to be focused on standard currencies).

    12. Re:Even if it is money, I get it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      18 U.S. Code 4 - Misprision of felony
      Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

    13. Re:Even if it is money, I get it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      18 U.S. Code 4 - Misprision of felony
      Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

      Relevant terms quoted. Per Wikipedia, you must actively conceal or assist in concealing evidence. Mens rea no doubt applies.

    14. Re: Even if it is money, I get it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it's a story about a judge dismissing an obvious case of entrapment.

  6. bitcoin is money, that's its only function by roman_mir · · Score: 0

    I am not saying at all that anybody should be charged with anything, AFAIC anybody should be able to do whatever they want, money laundering is a nonsensical idea in the first place, however bitcoin is money.

    Bitcoin is money because that is its only function. It is not a commodity, *bitcoin has no intrinsic value*, which means that outside of its use as money it has no other uses. It is used to transfer, store, account for value. It is as pure money as it gets, however because it has no intrinsic value at all (it cannot be used for anything outside of money, nobody needs it for anything but for its quality of being money) its ability to store value is questionable.

    On a side note bitcoin is money and currency at the same time, that's because it is money that is also very easy to exchange and transfer from person to person.

    Gold is money but it was not a very good currency (until recently), which is why people carried paper notes around to exchange quantities of gold (money). Currency is what circulates around, money is what stores value, can be traded/exchanged, can be used for accounting.

    Modern technology makes gold, which is money also into currency, makes it extremely easy to use as currency without introducing any other medium of exchange to replace gold. Modern tech allows gold to be currency instead of having paper currency representing amounts of gold.

    The judge in this case doesn't understand money or currency but at least he didn't use his lack of understanding to convict somebody on something that is not a crime AFAIC at all.

    --
    You can't handle the truth.
    1. Re:bitcoin is money, that's its only function by rhodium_mir · · Score: 0

      Farts are not a commodity, *farts have no intrinsic value*, which means that outside of their use as money they have no other uses. They are used to transfer, store, account for stinkiness. It is as pure money as it gets, however because it has no intrinsic value at all (it cannot be used for anything outside of stinking, nobody needs it for anything but for its quality of being money) its ability to store value is questionable.

      --
      You can't spell "oneiromancy" without "roman".
    2. Re:bitcoin is money, that's its only function by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Things have intrinsic properties, but intrinsic value is completely unknown and probably non-existent. Really, nothing has any known value except that which your mind has imposed upon it.

    3. Re:bitcoin is money, that's its only function by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just described its intrinsic value - it's good for stinking. If you want an area to stink, farts will solve your problem. That's the intrinsic value. Does bitcoin solve a problem? Ask Wikileaks.

      And besides, it can be used for things besides money, like secure time stamping, OneName, etc.

  7. You can stuff it under a mattress.... by steveb3210 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If you take a bitcoin address and print out the hash, you could put that under your mattress and delete the file.

    Only that piece of paper would then enable a person to spend the bitcoins.. If they burned up in a house fire, they would be gone forever assuming certain cryptographic primitives remain secure.

    1. Re:You can stuff it under a mattress.... by Kjella · · Score: 2

      If you take a bitcoin address and print out the hash, you could put that under your mattress and delete the file.

      Pretty sure you meant to say something else, you can print out the private keys associated with the public hashes but if all you have is the hash you got nothing. You can see the Bitcoins are there, but you can't send them to anyone so they're effectively lost.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  8. Here's a thought by easyTree · · Score: 1

    Why don't the undercover detectives get charged with:
      * Engaging in preparatory acts towards buying stolen credit cards
      * Entrapment

    Or is everything legal now (in the sense that bribing politicians is legal) ?

    --
    Requiem for the American Dream
    1. Re:Here's a thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      1. F.S. Ch. 896.105 grants immunity to law enforcement engaging in a bona fide investigation.

      2. Entrapment only applies when your will is overpowered by law enforcement making you engage in an activity you normally would not do. It is not entrapment that law enforcement offers you the ability to do an illegal act and you willingly do it of your own free will. If an undercover officer asks you if you want to buy cocaine and you say yes it's not entrapment. If an officer asks you to do a buy for them (or tells you you'll be charged with some crime like obstruction or interference if you don't) then they charge you it's entrapment.

    2. Re:Here's a thought by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Isn't it obstruction if you prevent an officer from making an arrest? So if you prevent an officer from arresting you because you're not buying his coke voluntarily, it's obstruction but if you do buy the coke voluntarily it's not entrapment?

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    3. Re: Here's a thought by easyTree · · Score: 2

      So they are able to subtly encourage you over the line and that's OK.

      I suppose that's how the devil can sleep at night too after a day sat on people's shoulders whispering suggestions to commit misdeeds.

      --
      Requiem for the American Dream
    4. Re: Here's a thought by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Conspiracy charges are even sneakier. If the FBI agent provocateur talks a bunch of morons into making a plan to do something illegal, like rob Fort Knox under cover of a pizza delivery, and one of the morons does something perfectly legal that clearly furthers the plan, time to arrest the guys and charge them with conspiracy to do something illegal.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  9. Gold is not money either by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm confused why the judge lumps gold with cash. Ben Bernanke himself said gold is not money, nor is it backed by anything.

    1. Re:Gold is not money either by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the judge was named Teresa Mary Pooler, not Ben Bernanke. reading comprehension fail.

    2. Re:Gold is not money either by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't say Ben Bernanke was the judge. He is more of an authority, over pretty much anyone, of what is and is not money.

  10. forget bitcoins for a moment by The_Rook · · Score: 2

    let's say, instead of bitcoins, the federal agents were trying to buy a 10 ounce bar of gold, which, they told the defendant, they were going to use to make illegal transactions. 10 ounces of gold are not money either. would the transaction be called money laundering or would it be legal?

    --
    when religion is no longer the opiate of the masses, governments will resort to real opiates.
    1. Re:forget bitcoins for a moment by dk20 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ownership of Gold was illegal in the US for a time period as well.

      http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu...

      Section 2. All persons are hereby required to deliver on or before May 1, 1933, to a Federal Reserve Bank or a branch or agency thereof or to any member bank of the Federal Reserve System all gold coin, gold bullion and gold certificates now owned by them or coming into their ownership on or before April 28, 1933, except the following:

    2. Re:forget bitcoins for a moment by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

      Now that was definitely government overreach.

      As long as I can find a shovel, there's no way they're gittin' ma hard-dug gold.

      --

      Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    3. Re:forget bitcoins for a moment by sg_oneill · · Score: 2

      let's say, instead of bitcoins, the federal agents were trying to buy a 10 ounce bar of gold, which, they told the defendant, they were going to use to make illegal transactions. 10 ounces of gold are not money either. would the transaction be called money laundering or would it be legal?

      Probably not, in that its an exchange of assets not money. The point with the ruling is the laundering laws refer to money not *stuff* and the judge is saying that bitcoin qualifies as *stuff*

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
  11. It's not money... not unlike US green back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's only a symbolic representation of value. A bitcoin doesn't have _real_ value, the way, say, a 10 dollar bill does.

    Which isn't saying much, as that ten dollar bill is fiat money, and is good only so long as the government's credibility holds up (which for the US government is ... well, not very well.)

    1. Re:It's not money... not unlike US green back by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Which isn't saying much, as that ten dollar bill is fiat money, and is good only so long as the government's credibility holds up (which for the US government is ... well, not very well.)

      Every country in the world is trying to put their wealth in dollars. US government credibility (or rather, the credibility of the US treasury and the Fed) is pretty goddamn high.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:It's not money... not unlike US green back by MachineShedFred · · Score: 0

      Except for the US Dollar being the standard reserve currency for every single country on the face of the planet.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    3. Re:It's not money... not unlike US green back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US government credibility (or rather, the credibility of the US treasury and the Fed) is pretty goddamn high.

      What makes US money credible are the goods and services that can be bought with it and the certainty that an authority with the most powerful military in the world stands fully behind it. In other words, people believe that their dollars or future dollars will deliver the goods and services that they want to have when they want to have them. As long as people believe that, the US dollar has worth.

    4. Re:It's not money... not unlike US green back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has worth because people with guns say it does. And they have big guns, and lots of them.

    5. Re:It's not money... not unlike US green back by waveclaw · · Score: 1

      Every country in the world is trying to put their wealth in dollars.

      Because to buy oil for heating, making gasoline to drive cars, making diesel to drive trucks or persecutors for plastics you need dollars. US dollars.

      The US governments, both one for the rich and the one for the poor, have been mighty stable compared to many poorly managed governments. But that's only because its economy moves in lockstep with most everybody's economy now. Thanks to international trade the US economy can feel any Chinese slow down or European Union financial stress. But to get or sell that fuel oil you need greenbacks even when your petro-nation is circling the $20-a-barrel toilet.

      And every time some uppity nation of non-white people tries to sell oil for Russian Rubles or Chinese Renminbi guns and bombs with American flags painted on the side go raining down on them until they change their mind.

      --

      "You cannot have a General Will unless you have shared experiences. You cannot be fair to people you don't know."
    6. Re:It's not money... not unlike US green back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But of course...

    7. Re:It's not money... not unlike US green back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your delusion levels are high.

    8. Re:It's not money... not unlike US green back by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

      Your delusion levels are high.

      Tell you what: pull out $100 US anywhere in the world and see if you find any takers. THAT'S how much credibility the US treasury and the Federal Reserve have. I've got a 500,000,000 dinar note from when Serbia was in hyperinflation (Nicola Tesla's picture!) and people were burning them for fuel. That's never happened, and will never happen, in the US (with a particular caveat mentioned below).

      Right now, Euro bonds are paying negative interest. At least at the moment, the dollar is still king worldwide.

      Now, if a certain vulgar talking yam becomes president, that might change, but for now, everybody wants dollars. Even the silly fuckers at Infowars are putting money into US treasuries. Alex Jones will blow you for $20 US.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  12. Re: she wrote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is that supposed to explain, and how?

  13. If this logic holds up... by bobbied · · Score: 1

    It's time to release DPR on a technicality, unless he was dumb enough to actually use cash to order those hits... Shesh...

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    1. Re:If this logic holds up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Procuring murder does not work that way. Also, I'm pretty sure the computer hacking and conspiracy to traffic narcotics charges would continue to stick even supposing the money laundering and murder-for-hire charges didn't.

    2. Re:If this logic holds up... by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Department of Pesticide Regulation?

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    3. Re:If this logic holds up... by ACE209 · · Score: 1

      Dread Pirate Roberts. The guy who took the fall for founding silk road.

      --
      "we are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
    4. Re: If this logic holds up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. That was the previous Dread Pirate Roberts.

  14. Seems to be property according to the IRS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    https://www.irs.gov/uac/newsroom/irs-virtual-currency-guidance

  15. Bitcoin IS not money by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    Bitcoin Not Money

    Why you skip words? Slashdot not newspaper, not have physical limit on headline length.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:Bitcoin IS not money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you suck a dick? Your throat doesn't have a physical limit on cock length.

    2. Re: Bitcoin IS not money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me no see problem.

    3. Re:Bitcoin IS not money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is Slashdot. Adjust your expectations accordingly. I'm somewhat impressed they didn't skip the word "not".

    4. Re:Bitcoin IS not money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BitCoin doubleplus unmoney.

    5. Re:Bitcoin IS not money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you referring to the reverse anal penetration where the cock goes through the whole intestinal track before peeking out of the natural way?

    6. Re:Bitcoin IS not money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it does.

      I'm a porn producer. We've tried videos where we pair a "deep throat-er" with an extremely hung male.

      If the tip of the penis reaches the area of the esophagus near the stomach sphincter, you can get stomach acid IN the penis which is painful and requires minor medical attention.

  16. CASELAW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This case hinges on the vague language of the law more then the definition of Bitcoin. Fix the law, but that would reduce selective enforcement!

  17. Re: she wrote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is that an explanation?

  18. Most money is just numbers in accounts by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

    I don't get this. Most of the monetary value in the world doesn't exist as bills or gold.

    It's just numbers created in bank accounts when bank loan out money that they don't actually have. They only have, what is it, 3%, 10% of it?

    So if my method of money laundering is just moving and splitting this "virtual number money" around among a confusing number of accounts, then by this judge's logic that's not money laundering because, by her logic, mere numbers in accounts are not money?

    Really confused here.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    1. Re:Most money is just numbers in accounts by JcMorin · · Score: 1

      By reading what you just wrote, you may be confuse but you still know a lots more than most people do. What bank don't keep all my money in cash in their vault filled with gold bar?

    2. Re:Most money is just numbers in accounts by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Those virtual numbers have US$ signs next to them, not BTC.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    3. Re:Most money is just numbers in accounts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only because you view the account in the USA. If you view it in Japan you can probably get the bank to show you the value in Yen. Then it would be a different value and have a Yen sign next to it.

      Why is this so hard for people to understand? Your "money" doesn't exist. Giving you pieces of paper no longer means the bank gives you money any more than giving you M&Ms means they are giving you money. Whoever you trade the paper to will just take the paper and deposit it back into a bank and convert it back into plain numbers.

      Now think about this: when they "deposit" the dollar bill into a bank, the bank "deposits" that bill into an account, but it doesn't destroy the paper. What does that mean? By your antique thinking it means there are now two dollars when there were only one a moment ago.
      This obviously isn't true. When the treasury says there are X BILLIONS of dollar bills in circulation, they mean the paper, but when they say the are X TRILLIONS of dollars in existence they ONLY mean the numbers in the computers. The paper only has meaning OUTSIDE of a bank, and only then because we don't have personal currency -- yet.

  19. In related news ... by PPH · · Score: 2

    ... money is not money either.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  20. Re: she wrote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clearly it means she shoulda typed instead. :P

  21. This judge needs to go back to college by garompeta · · Score: 1

    You can launder money with shit, literally, pieces of turd. Buy manure from a provider and then sell it back to a farmer, and you successfully have layered and integrated the funds as legitimate. Nobody will debate that manure isn't money, and that is not the point. The point is that money of illicit origin has been laundered.

    1. Re:This judge needs to go back to college by Jumunquo · · Score: 1

      Wrong. The money was not of illicit origin. But they told the guy they planned to commit a crime with the BitCoin he gave them. That's what makes this case weird.

    2. Re: This judge needs to go back to college by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No crime was actually committed, but they prosecuted the guy for being complicit in the nonexistent crime.

  22. Re:via eat shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had to deny this shit more than deny jesus my full to see if m fuck book.

  23. VAT by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    If it is not a money, then VAT should be paid on it.

  24. People already prosecuted as if Bitcoin were money by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 1

    Several people have already been prosecuted for running an unlicensed money transmitting business and money laundering, including people using the localbitcoins website. If this judge just ruled that Bitcoin isn't money, then how does that affect those other cases?

  25. Lesson learned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't sell stuff to undercover FBI-agents...

  26. Of course it is not money. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bitcoins are a fictional internet currency. They are like gold coins in some arcade computer game.

  27. Bitcoin zealot here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The ruling isn't a big surprise (it's frequently debated), but what's surprising is that the defendant was dumb enough to fall for this trick. Everyone on localbitcoins knows: if the guy says ANYTHING SKETCHY WHATSOEVER about what he's doing, with either the cash or the bitcoins, YOU WALK. This is repeated to newbies on a daily basis. It's not just the law, it's the right thing to do. It's an outrage that this guy was willing to become an accomplice to fraud and gets to walk on a technicality.

  28. Thw whole case is B.S. by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

    No stolen credit card numbers were going to be bought. Detectives were pretending they were going to buy stolen credit cards. These types of set ups are a waste of taxpayer money.

    1. Re:Thw whole case is B.S. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No stolen credit card numbers were going to be bought. Detectives were pretending they were going to buy stolen credit cards. These types of set ups are a waste of taxpayer money.

      so the officers were the ones actually faking breaking the law? I do odd jobs for this company and sometimes i go to a bitcoin machine and put cash into a clients account. If it's not a recognized currency, why would they do this?

  29. No sales taxes on purchases with Bitcoin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "... the Bitcoin has a long way to go before it the equivalent of money,"
    Doesn't this imply that no sales tax or other tax need be paid with doing a transaction with Bitcoin?
    Hey work, pay me in Bitcoin so I don't have to pay income taxes!
    Technically, on barter transactions is income or sales tax required to be paid (probably in equivalent amount of US Currency)?

    I think different parts of the government seem to have different interpretations.

    1. Re:No sales taxes on purchases with Bitcoin? by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      No. Maryland has been known to stop trucks on the Baltimore beltway from North Carolina with furniture, check the paperwork and they make sure the buyer pays their fair share in sales tax. All citizens of states with sales tax are obligated to pay sales tax on sales.

      Does it happen? Almost never.

  30. She Needs to Do some Homework by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    The feds have already declared it a currency.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  31. The USD isn't money either. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is debt. It is fiat currency. It is a debt instrument. It has way less than zero value.

    Thank your local CIA. (they're in the bushes)