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