Feds Moving Quickly To Cash in on Seized Bitcoin, Now Worth $8.4 Million (arstechnica.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Feds Moving Quickly To Cash in on Seized Bitcoin, Now Worth $8.4 Million (arstechnica.com)

Posted by msmash on Friday December 15, 2017 @06:40AM from the gotta-cash-in dept.

A federal judge in Utah has agreed to let the US government sell off a seized cache of over 513 bitcoins (BTC) and 512 Bitcoin Cash (BCH). At current prices, that would yield approximately $8.4 million for the bitcoins and nearly $1 million for the BCH. From a report: In a court filing, prosecutors noted that due to the volatility of the Bitcoin market, both coins risk losing value. Both the BTC and the BCH have already been transferred to government-controlled wallets. The new round of seized digital currency belonged to a Utah man named Aaron Shamo, whom prosecutors say led a multimillion-dollar ring of counterfeit pharmaceuticals, including oxycodone and alprazolam that were sold on Dark Web marketplaces. Shamo was arrested over a year ago -- his trial has not yet been scheduled. On Tuesday, US District Judge Dale Kimball allowed the sale to proceed. Once sold, the money would go to an account held at the Treasury Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture.

85 of 151 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

yup - hasn't even been found guilty yet by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-15 06:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

America, land of the free, and you have RIGHTS... HA HA HA! Meanwhile we will steal your stuff and sell it, putting it into the government's pockets, before you are even convicted of the crime. What good do your guns do you now to defend against tyranny?
1. Re:yup - hasn't even been found guilty yet by mysidia · 2017-12-15 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  America, land of the free, and you have RIGHTS... HA HA HA! Meanwhile we will steal your stuff and sell it, putting it into the government's pockets, before you are even convicted of the crime.
  If they sell AND he's found innocent, AND Bitcoin rises in price to $1 Million US per Bitcoin.... he should get the full $513 Million back plus interest, OR sue their arses off.
2. Re:yup - hasn't even been found guilty yet by Xylantiel · 2017-12-15 08:31 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  While I don't really like asset forfeiture rules generally, for this guy it looks like the trial is basically just figuring out how many life sentences he will be serving. The judge did have to sign off on this, the cops couldn't do it all by themselves, that's the due process. This guy is accused of running a business making fake pills. That kills people about as sure as if he were shooting at random buildings.
3. Re:yup - hasn't even been found guilty yet by sexconker · 2017-12-15 08:49 · Score: 2
  
  If it crashes and he's found innocent, and they bother to return his property at all, they'd just buy him new, cheaper bitcoins.
4. Re:yup - hasn't even been found guilty yet by shaitand · 2017-12-15 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  Yup, it's sketchy enough that Regan era drug war policies letting police steal the property of someone who has committed a crime related to drugs are still in affect (seems to conflict with the accused being able to pay for their defense for starters) but now you can sell their property out from under them?
  
  If you accuse me of a crime and steal my house then sell it out from under me while I await trial I'm going to be pissed. I don't even care if the price went DOWN in the meantime and you give me more money than it would be worth when I get out money is not the same as the actual item.
  
  "Shamo was arrested over a year ago -- his trial has not yet been scheduled."
  
  That alone should be an automatic get out of jail free card. I don't know what the limits precedent sets on it but if they allow the prosecution to keep you jailed for over a year without proving you've committed a crime they are definitely in conflict with the right to a speedy trial guaranteed by the sixth amendment. When this guy does see a judge it should be an automatic "not guilty" without regard to evidence.
5. Re:yup - hasn't even been found guilty yet by shaitand · 2017-12-15 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  "that's the due process"
  
  He has a right to a speedy trial. It doesn't matter what he's accused of, they didn't give him a speedy trial instead they held him for a year without due process and the state holding people without due process is a MUCH bigger crime than shooting at random buildings.
6. Re:yup - hasn't even been found guilty yet by unrtst · 2017-12-15 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  He has a right to a speedy trial. ... they didn't give him a speedy trial instead they held him for a year without due process...
  Being held for a year while awaiting for the trial to be scheduled does not necessarily mean that his right to a speedy trial was violated. There are a variety of exclusions (ex. delays due to motions filed before the trial, which, I think, could come either party).
7. Re:yup - hasn't even been found guilty yet by rtb61 · 2017-12-15 17:19 · Score: 1
  
  Innocent until proven guilty, kind of stops right there. They are factually stealing assets from an innocent person and crime against the US constitution for which the victim now has the right to seize all US government property?
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
8. Re: yup - hasn't even been found guilty yet by Reverend+Green · 2017-12-15 17:52 · Score: 1
  
  In Soviet America, everyone has the right to a speedy trial.
9. Re: yup - hasn't even been found guilty yet by Reverend+Green · 2017-12-15 17:58 · Score: 1
  
  What greater symbol of the courts' brutal power-drunk overreach than the habit of sentencing the condemned to multiple life sentences. It recalls the image of a deranged killer, shooting his victim's lifeless body over and over again, all the while maniacally cackling.
10. Re: yup - hasn't even been found guilty yet by Reverend+Green · 2017-12-15 18:00 · Score: 1
  
  So basically they just ignore that part of the Constitution. Awesome.
11. Re: yup - hasn't even been found guilty yet by dryeo · 2017-12-15 19:03 · Score: 1
  
  It's one of those subjective rights, like the right not to have cruel and unusual punishment or unreasonable searches.
  Up here the Canadian Supreme Court recently set new guidelines, 30 months for Federal, 18 months for Provincial. 5 to 4 decision with the minority voting it was too short. Murderers are being released as well as many others. The real problem is austerity where the government hasn't been hiring Judges.
  http://www.cbc.ca/news/politic...
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
12. Re: yup - hasn't even been found guilty yet by shaitand · 2017-12-17 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  If we are declaring too many people criminals to be able to give them a trial within a couple weeks we are obviously labeling too many things as criminal and need to start relaxing our laws.
  
  Especially considering that the moment we enter a guilty verdict (even a plea) that person's gainful employment prospect is effectively destroyed if it wasn't destroyed the moment we accused them.
13. Re: yup - hasn't even been found guilty yet by dryeo · 2017-12-17 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  If we are declaring too many people criminals to be able to give them a trial within a couple weeks we are obviously labeling too many things as criminal and need to start relaxing our laws.
  While it is true that we're labeling too many things criminal. (We got into this mess up here partially due to a right wing government doing the tough on crime thing without financing it). For the crimes that most people consider serious and that should be crimes such as murder, it often takes more then a few weeks to get the evidence together. I don't know what the limits should be but I do understand it takes time to gather and organize evidence.
  It also depends on how you're spending your time waiting for trial. Being stuck in remand is much worse then having some travel restrictions
  There's also the defenses right to take as long as needed to formulate a defense. The right to a speedy trial does not negate the right to justice.
  
  Especially considering that the moment we enter a guilty verdict (even a plea) that person's gainful employment prospect is effectively destroyed if it wasn't destroyed the moment we accused them.
  A lot of that is cultural, including deciding which rights are more important. Up here, at least in theory, it is illegal to discriminate against convicted criminals who have served their time unless it has a direct bearing on the job. Peoples privacy rights are also important enough that just being arrested is not usually published and even having charges laid is often not broadcast too much though the court records are usually open to anyone who wants to look.
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
14. Re: yup - hasn't even been found guilty yet by shaitand · 2017-12-17 20:31 · Score: 1
  
  "I don't know what the limits should be but I do understand it takes time to gather and organize evidence."
  
  True but that is or should be over before anyone is accused or arrested.
  
  "There's also the defenses right to take as long as needed to formulate a defense."
  
  Yes, but how does that delay the start of trial? That is a delay that can occur during the trial after the prosecution has proven they even have enough evidence for the case to go to trial.
  
  "Up here, at least in theory, it is illegal to discriminate against convicted criminals who have served their time unless it has a direct bearing on the job. Peoples privacy rights are also important enough that just being arrested is not usually published and even having charges laid is often not broadcast too much though the court records are usually open to anyone who wants to look."
  
  That is a more sane policy than we have in the US. In the US employers are free to discriminate against convicted criminals, period. Every position requires disclosure of past criminal offenses and failure to disclose is always grounds for termination. Background checks to discover and verify any past criminal record are pretty much standard process and there are a number of employment screening companies that employers utilize to check for criminal history, credit history, and verify employment history. It has gotten to the point where a gap in employment history or poor credit can also exclude someone from a decent job.
  
  You might have been the manager of a major downtown city bank branch before but if you lost your job and took six months searching during which you missed a couple credit card payments you won't be one again. If during that time the cute young thing you encountered at the bar after a few drinks turns out to have been 17 you won't be anything but a fry cook on a sex offender registry for the rest of your life. By the time you are done with all the counseling they are going to put you through they'll even have you convinced you deserve it (happened to someone I knew).
15. Re: yup - hasn't even been found guilty yet by dryeo · 2017-12-18 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  "I don't know what the limits should be but I do understand it takes time to gather and organize evidence."
  True but that is or should be over before anyone is accused or arrested.
  Ideally, but things often don't work like that. Real world extreme example. Pig farmer suspected of killing prostitutes. Cops search his property and find possessions of a couple of missing women, circumstantial evidence, but enough to lay charges and continue the search. Suspected that he used wood chipper and/or pigs to dispose of the bodies. Takes years to go over the 40 acres or so looking for bone fragments/DNA etc and prosecution keeps asking for more time to get evidence together, which they keep adding to.
  Trial starts on first 3 murder charges, takes a year (he's convicted) and then there is another year where Pickton can appeal. Meanwhile there is another 27 murder charges laid.
  While the other murder charges were stayed as once he was put away for a few life sentences, why bother, If he'd got off on the first charges there would have been more trials with years going by.
  So you have years of evidence gathering, then a possibility of a chain of trials and meanwhile the need to keep this nutcase of the streets.
  
  "There's also the defenses right to take as long as needed to formulate a defense."
  Yes, but how does that delay the start of trial? That is a delay that can occur during the trial after the prosecution has proven they even have enough evidence for the case to go to trial.
  When does a trial start? Contrived example, suspect is accused of DUI causing death after having 2 drinks and having a pedestrian jump in front of his car. Cops get a warrant for his blood, takes months for test results to come back (saying .09 or .01 over the limit) so trial is delayed for that. Then the defendant exercising his right to make a defence by getting a Judge to order the government to give him one of the two blood samples that were taken during the search (and they better have taken two samples) for independent testing, which also takes months so at the start of the trial the defendant asks for a recess of a couple of months to get his samples tested. Trial is delayed.
  
  "Up here, at least in theory, it is illegal to discriminate against convicted criminals who have served their time unless it has a direct bearing on the job. Peoples privacy rights are also important enough that just being arrested is not usually published and even having charges laid is often not broadcast too much though the court records are usually open to anyone who wants to look."
  That is a more sane policy than we have in the US. In the US employers are free to discriminate against convicted criminals, period. Every position requires disclosure of past criminal offenses and failure to disclose is always grounds for termination. Background checks to discover and verify any past criminal record are pretty much standard process and there are a number of employment screening companies that employers utilize to check for criminal history, credit history, and verify employment history. It has gotten to the point where a gap in employment history or poor credit can also exclude someone from a decent job.
  You might have been the manager of a major downtown city bank branch before but if you lost your job and took six months searching during which you missed a couple credit card payments you won't be one again. If during that time the cute young thing you encountered at the bar after a few drinks turns out to have been 17 you won't be anything but a fry cook on a sex offender registry for the rest of your life. By the time you are done with all the counseling they are going to put you through they'll even have you convinced you deserve it (happened to someone I knew).
  Yea, the power of business and government down there seems insane. Up here, it takes a Judge to put you on the sex offenders list, at
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
16. Re: yup - hasn't even been found guilty yet by shaitand · 2017-12-18 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  "Contrived example, suspect is accused of DUI causing death after having 2 drinks and having a pedestrian jump in front of his car. Cops get a warrant for his blood, takes months for test results to come back (saying .09 or .01 over the limit) so trial is delayed for that."
  
  Yes, but so is an arrest. You can't just deprive someone of their freedom on suspicion. You need proof
  
  "So you have years of evidence gathering, then a possibility of a chain of trials and meanwhile the need to keep this nutcase of the streets."
  
  Most of those years are after he was convicted of the initial charges but for the rest your "need to keep this nutcase of[sic] the streets" again works from the presumption of guilt. I agree that finding some clothes was enough to justify a warrant, keep searching, and even bar travel but not bring charges. By all means do take advantage of your 24hrs to hold him for questioning. Just because he subsequently proved to be guilty doesn't mean it was retroactively okay to assume he was guilty until proven innocent rather than innocent until proven guilty.
  
  Part of the problem is that we tend to have an obsession with going CSI on everything these days. Just because DNA exists doesn't mean we must spend months gathering it and introduce it in every murder trial. If there was blood on those clothes, arrest him, establish a differing blood type, if you've got bone fragments from behind the wood chipper then introduce those. The clothes, blood, bone fragments, and whatever justified the search are more than enough to convict in 1940 and it is more than enough now. Save the DNA for subsequent charges (or at least identification for the families/closed cases, not sure there was a point in additional charges) and the defense to show he didn't do it.
17. Re: yup - hasn't even been found guilty yet by dryeo · 2017-12-19 12:59 · Score: 1
  
  My DUI example was bad as actually I just wanted to show where the defense wants to delay the trial to get their defense in order. Charges wouldn't be laid until the tests come in.
  As for Pickton, at the point where they searched and found personal possessions of missing people and charged him, they charged him due to having enough evidence (much word of mouth, including at least one woman who escaped him) to probably get a conviction. The more evidence, especially bodies, the better chance of a conviction for first degree murder instead of perhaps only a second degree conviction or worse.
  There was also a lot of families who wanted to know where their family members had gone and ended up being a long investigation into how the police fucked up to begin with by ignoring the prostitutes and native women who had been telling the cops about Pickton for too long.
  Anyways powers flickering here so time to shut down.
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
It seems utterly foreign to me by nightfire-unique · 2017-12-15 06:48 · Score: 1

.. that government servants are able to cash in on their seizures like they earned the money. It should rightfully be destroyed, or returned directly to taxpayers via a refundable credit.

--
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
1. Re:It seems utterly foreign to me by Gilgaron · 2017-12-15 06:53 · Score: 2
  
  The reason is to counterbalance the effects that using the stash to bribe them would otherwise provide, but it does seem a little mercenary and certainly has deleterious effects with civil forfeiture.
2. Re:It seems utterly foreign to me by Wycliffe · 2017-12-15 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  I would like to see seized assets either be applied directly to the national debt or donated to charity. I would even be ok with the local police department deciding which 501c3 to donate it to but in no ways should they be allowed to directly benefit from either seized assets or fines.
3. Re:It seems utterly foreign to me by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-15 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  The part that's crazy to me is that the dude hasn't even had a trial yet and they are already liquidating his assets. Currently, he's innocent. They are selling off an innocent man's property. That's wrong.
4. Re:It seems utterly foreign to me by EnsilZah · 2017-12-15 07:00 · Score: 2
  
  It seems pretty foreign to me that they can do whatever they please with the property of someone whose trial hasn't even been set yet.
5. Re:It seems utterly foreign to me by Hognoxious · 2017-12-15 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously? They get to personally pocket the dosh?
  I'm in a kind of uncanny valley, because it's so retarded it shouldn't be true, but some retarded things actually are.
  Do they have to give it back if (unlikely, I know) he's found not guilty?
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
6. Re:It seems utterly foreign to me by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-15 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  When has the government ever cared about right and wrong?
7. Re:It seems utterly foreign to me by squiggleslash · 2017-12-15 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  Well hold on to your hat because you're about to be blown away by what I'm about to say: It's not going to government servants! That's right! It's not! It's actually going to the Treasury, it's right there in the summary!
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
8. Re: It seems utterly foreign to me by Wycliffe · 2017-12-15 07:24 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I'm not a liberal. I don't hate the first responders. I just don't think the seized money belongs to them. It doesn't seem like "finders keepers" should apply when the are paid by tax dollars to do the finding. There is also a significant conflict of interest when they are allowed to keep what they find. Spending drug money on drug rehab programs or some other way that directly benefits society seems fairer.
9. Re:It seems utterly foreign to me by nightfire-unique · 2017-12-15 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  Not sure if sarcastic... but you should that eliminating corruption and temptation is helping first responders.
  Take the drug war. If it were eliminated, violent crime would be significantly reduced, along with 90% of the no-knock raids. Protects the first responders. Literally everyone wins, except drug dealers and the DEA administration.
  Eliminating profit from seizures would disincentivize performing seizures. Fewer seizures mean fewer raids, and less risk to first responders.
  If they need more money, raise taxes like the rest of the civilized world. Theft is the wrong answer, even if it is done "legally."
  
  --
  A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
10. Re:It seems utterly foreign to me by rogoshen1 · 2017-12-15 07:42 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  civil forfeiture is theft, plain and simple.
  the idea that YOUR ASSETS are on trial, and you have no standing is absolutely fucking weapons grade bonkers.
11. Re:It seems utterly foreign to me by AlanObject · 2017-12-15 07:56 · Score: 2
  
  Do they have to give it back if (unlikely, I know) he's found not guilty?
  Nominally they do. But I have read a lot of cases where it has proved very hard to get your property back after a civil asset forfeiture action.
  This happens a lot in smaller actions, not where millions of dollars are at stake. Somebody gets their door kicked in on suspicion of something or other, they often gather up all computers and files. Cars and other vehicles. It can take months if not years to get it back after the prosecution has been dropped and often it isn't in good shape when returned.
  Civil asset forfeiture is one of those institutions that are incredibly ripe for abuse and are arguably totally unconstitutional to begin with. But nobody wants to be activist to fix it because they don't think it will ever apply to them. And for the most part that is true so law enforcement gets to use it as the wish.
12. Re:It seems utterly foreign to me by fahrbot-bot · 2017-12-15 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  civil forfeiture is theft, plain and simple.
  the idea that YOUR ASSETS are on trial, and you have no standing is absolutely fucking weapons grade bonkers.
  On the other hand, it's probable that the guy bought/acquired the Bitcoins as a result of selling bogus drugs. If so, those assets were obtained unlawfully. However, if he's acquitted or he can prove they were obtained legally, he can petition to get his property back. One can argue about the wisdom of selling the Bitcoins now -- they could continue to increase in value -- but, in any event, the guy or Government won't lose money should their value decline or, more likely, Bitcoin crashes.
  
  Aaron Shamo, whom prosecutors say led a multimillion-dollar ring of counterfeit pharmaceuticals, including oxycodone and alprazolam that were sold on Dark Web marketplaces.
  
  --
  It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
13. Re:It seems utterly foreign to me by fahrbot-bot · 2017-12-15 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously? They get to personally pocket the dosh?
  Sure, if you work at the Treasury and your name is Asset Forfeiture.
  
  Once sold, the money would go to an account held at the Treasury Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture.
  
  --
  It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
14. Re:It seems utterly foreign to me by Sperbels · 2017-12-15 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  It seems pretty foreign to me that they can even seize property of someone who's been convicted.
15. Re:It seems utterly foreign to me by mysidia · 2017-12-15 08:26 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  they could continue to increase in value -- but, in any event, the guy or Government won't lose money
  The 5th amendment demands just compensation for the taking of private property for use by the government.
  ONE of the rights you have as owner of property is the right to control and direct the Timing of when and if you sell it or convert it into US fiat, based on your expectation of what the market price will be.
  So if it DOES continue to increase in value sufficiently, then the guy could make the claim he intended to HODL the coins and be due $10 Billion US, the cash equivalent, if for some reason the government's unable to return his property in the same condition as they found it, or if it DECREASES in value, then the guy could claim he intended to sell and thus demand PROPERTY + Compensation for his loss caused by the government interfering with his rights to direct regarding the disposition of his property.
16. Re:It seems utterly foreign to me by Holi · 2017-12-15 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  That sounds like a tremendous waste of time to be honest.
  
  --
  Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
17. Re:It seems utterly foreign to me by omnichad · 2017-12-15 08:39 · Score: 1
  
  if for some reason the government's unable to return his property in the same condition as they found it, or if it DECREASES in value, then the guy could claim he intended to sell and thus demand PROPERTY + Compensation for his loss caused by the government interfering with his rights to direct regarding the disposition of his property.
  And if that's the gamble, I'm pretty sure they picked correctly.
18. Re:It seems utterly foreign to me by shaitand · 2017-12-15 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  "Why do you libs all hate the first responders?"
  
  Maybe we just think the people we trust to protect the innocent from criminals and the crimes of false arrest and prosecution shouldn't have a financial incentive to falsely arrest and prosecute people.
  
  We have a tax system, whether you agree with the system as it stands or not it is our societies best effort to charge the public for public services in a fair manner. There should be precisely zero other ways we pay for public services.
19. Re:It seems utterly foreign to me by shaitand · 2017-12-15 09:21 · Score: 1
  
  "On the other hand, it's probable that the guy bought/acquired the Bitcoins as a result of selling bogus drugs. If so, those assets were obtained unlawfully. However, if he's acquitted or he can prove they were obtained legally"
  
  In our system the accused are innocent until proven guilty. You've defined a system of assuming he is guilty until he manages to establish otherwise. In this case he has been held a year as an assumed innocent, that violates the six amendment so it really no longer matters if they could have proven him guilty of something. He should walk.
20. Re:It seems utterly foreign to me by shaitand · 2017-12-15 09:23 · Score: 2
  
  That and they've held him for a year without trial, even if it did crash he has the right to sue them for the lost opportunity to sell before the crash.
21. Re:It seems utterly foreign to me by shaitand · 2017-12-15 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  No, they seize the property obtained by someone who has committed a crime whether that property was obtained by criminal means or not.
22. Re:It seems utterly foreign to me by shaitand · 2017-12-15 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  Well no actually, if you work for anyone who provides paychecks checks covered directly or indirectly by the treasury you get to pocket it.
23. Re:It seems utterly foreign to me by cayenne8 · 2017-12-15 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  Why do you libs all hate the first responders?
  I"m pretty far away from being a liberal, and I pretty much agree with the OP.
  Allowing the entity that can arrest and charge you with something allowing them to seize valuable assets from you, seems quite dangerous if they are to directly benefit from them.
  I mean, there is 100% incentive for them to try to charge someone just to get money. That is seriously dangerous. And it isn't like we've never seen a crooked cop or politician, right?
  So, I would also like it, if property is to be seized....that the proceeds from it go back to the tax payers or maybe like suggested, to paying off the national debt, and that way it would help insure that the ONLY motivation of the law enforcement entities is PURELY for justice and enforcing the law.
  I've often suggested that we take local and state fines collected from traffic offenses and at EOY, give them back as a check to all citizens that drive that have not committed any offenses as a reward.
  The trouble with that is, I'm guessing cops would likely give up sitting around looking for someone going 5-10mph over the limit. Frankly, I would rather them look more for criminals cruizing at 10mph looking to do a drive by, rather than a citizen going 10mph over the limit trying to get to work on time to be productive, but that's just me.
  But yes, while I support law enforcement...we need them to protect from violent crime, etc....we should not give them fiscal incentive to enforce laws as that the presents a conflict of interest...law should be enforced ONLY for the sake of enforcing the law, not for monetary gain.
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
24. Re:It seems utterly foreign to me by Frobnicator · 2017-12-15 17:48 · Score: 1
  
  That and they've held him for a year without trial
  In all these cases it is the defendant (and their lawyers) who must agree the right to a speedy trial be waived. It is usually in the defendant's own best interest.
  In most cases prosecutors have all the cards and are prepared with ally they need when they finally press charges. They are more than willing to move to a trial immediately before the defense has time to gather all they need. The government usually spends months preparing these cases so they're certain that (right or wrong) they can get a conviction or a plea deal.
  Defense lawyers recommend the time so they can demand as much evidence as they can. It also allows time to build a solid defense, and to question and verify all the evidence prosecutors have gathered. (Prosecutors still withhold far too often, a currently estimated 20% of all criminal cases, and even the most blatant violators where prosecutors openly admit to the crime will go unpunished. Google finds only a single DA who has been imprisoned for it -- Ken Anderson who was imprisoned for 10 days following discovery in a case where the prosecutor's crimes caused an innocent man to be in prison nearly 25 years. A few have resigned over the crimes, a few had legal licenses revoked, but no others have been to prison despite the estimated 20% of all cases where prosecutors violate people's rights. )
  Of course, time between arrest and trial still doesn't make the asset forfeiture right. That system is all kinds of messed up.
  
  --
  //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
25. Re:It seems utterly foreign to me by PopeRatzo · 2017-12-15 19:32 · Score: 1
  
  Presidents don't make the law in America. Do you want President Trump to assume that power?
  But they do make Justice Department policy, and the policy in the Trump administration is more civil forfeitures.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
26. Re:It seems utterly foreign to me by Agripa · 2017-12-16 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  That and they've held him for a year without trial
  In all these cases it is the defendant (and their lawyers) who must agree the right to a speedy trial be waived.
  No, not all of them and the courts support various ways to coerce the defendant into giving up their rights.
  https://www.newyorker.com/maga...
  June 23, 2011: People not ready, request 1 week.
  August 24, 2011: People not ready, request 1 day.
  November 4, 2011: People not ready, prosecutor on trial, request 2 weeks.
  December 2, 2011: Prosecutor on trial, request January 3rd.
27. Re:It seems utterly foreign to me by ElizabethGreene · 2017-12-18 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  >> Once sold, the money would go to an account held at the Treasury Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture.
  Through a process called revenue sharing, a portion of these dollars (>80%) can flow back out of the treasury and into the state or local law enforcement agency that executed the seizure.
  If that sounds fundamentally wrong and rife with the opportunity for abuse, congratulations. It appears you are paying attention.
What if it goes up? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-15 06:49 · Score: 1, Interesting

They're going to sell off seized assets before the trial has even been scheduled? What if the value goes up and he's acquitted? Will taxpayers be on the hook for the difference when he goes to collect his property?
Feds Cash In by deesine · 2017-12-15 06:51 · Score: 1

"Feds Cash In BitCoin." A title like that, carried by enough outlets, just might ignite the "correction".

--
damaged by dogma
Re:"Worth" by AvitarX · 2017-12-15 06:52 · Score: 1

You could buy 9 million dollars, that's pretty valuable.

--
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
No Trial? by skipkent · 2017-12-15 07:03 · Score: 4, Funny

"Shamo was arrested over a year ago -- his trial has not yet been scheduled."
I'm glad the Framers added the right to speedy sale of BTC, but they could have also added one for trials.
1. Re:No Trial? by BlueStrat · 2017-12-15 08:23 · Score: 2
  
  Indeed - bitcoin delayed is bitcoin denied
  You know the old saying; "Better that ten innocent BTC owners have their assets seized by the government and liquidated by the Treasury without trial, rather than allowing even one citizen to stash away wealth in a crypto blockchain we can't touch."
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
2. Re:No Trial? by sl3xd · 2017-12-15 08:43 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I'm glad the Framers added the right to speedy sale of BTC, but they could have also added one for trials.
  It could be his defense team requesting the delay.
  Civil forfeiture is used for nearly every drug crime prosecuted (not convicted -- prosecuted). The process goes all the way back to the US prohibition on Alcohol. The chemical substance may have changed, but the process is the same: Property is seized during "drug" activity, the Police get the assets to buy equipment, facilities, or salaries.
  It's one reason you never travel with a large amount of cash in the US. In some states, police can often just claim "we have probable cause that the cash is drug money" and seize it. Zero recourse.
  Richard Thornburgh, Reagan's attorney general, said:
  
  It's now possible for a drug dealer to serve time in a forfeiture-financed prison after being arrested by agents driving a forfeiture-provided automobile while working in a forfeiture-funded sting operation.
  Many politicians love the idea - make the police self-funding by letting the Police keep seized assets, and then cut taxes.
  What could possibly go wrong when the Police are financially motivated to seize property, and don't need to convict the owner to seize it?
  
  --
  -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
Re:"Worth" by Joce640k · 2017-12-15 07:03 · Score: 1

And so it begins.

--
No sig today...
Makes sense to me by ErichTheRed · 2017-12-15 07:03 · Score: 2, Interesting

It makes sense that they'd try to convert this particular seized asset to cash ASAP. It's not mansions, paintings and a fleet of luxury cars...it's a highly volatile cryptocurrency. Turn it into cash, hold onto it until the trial and appeals are over, and you still have an asset worth something. If they wait and the bubble pops, they get nothing or a fraction of what they would get had they sold.
1. Re:Makes sense to me by nevermindme · 2017-12-15 07:15 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Or the other defendant is innocent, and the assert will be worth 10x the original value the day the judgement is made and the defendant cannot sue the government for the loss because the people choose to fuck with his investment strategy why pursuing an ill advised prosecution.. US dollars, 6 tons of guns, 12 cases of wine or half a ton of gold bars would remain unchanged, this is not a pile of cabbage that will rot away. Perhaps the government has no place in controlling someones assets that may have been generated outside of a crime. Outside of fraud and ponzi schemes, Perhaps defendants should be able to control the allocation of their liquid asserts until the case is rightfully decided.
2. Re:Makes sense to me by RobinH · 2017-12-15 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  It could just as easily go the other way. If he's found innocent (unlikely perhaps, but possible) and the value goes up, doesn't that mean he gets it back? Wouldn't it be safer in that case to just return the bitcoins you seized, whatever their value?
  
  --
  "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
3. Re:Makes sense to me by JesseMcDonald · 2017-12-15 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  On the other hand, volatility works both ways. If they fail to make their case then they owe Aaron Shamo his seized property back, 513 BTC and 512 BCH, plus whatever profit they realized on it while it was in their keeping, since that profit would naturally have accrued to the owner if they hadn't interfered.
  Selling now allows them to lock in the higher price in the event that they win, but also means that they stand to lose quite a bit if the price rises and they lose the case.
  
  --
  "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
4. Re:Makes sense to me by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-15 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  The problem isn't that the police seized the assets and prevented the defendant from routing them to other forms and uses pending the trial.
  The problem is that assets seized from a drug arrest can be auctioned and the proceeds given to the police department before there is a conviction that a crime even was committed.
  This means you can be arrested on a drug charge, and before the test comes back about whether those pills in your pocket were ibuprofen or crack, the police have sold your car and bought a new set of hats for the whole department.
5. Re:Makes sense to me by Anubis+IV · 2017-12-15 08:10 · Score: 2
  
  That would make sense if this were an asset they owned. But it isn't. It's still his property, merely in their possession. The government is merely holding his seized assets in escrow until the trial is concluded. If he's found guilty, they are free to do with them as they please, but not until then. Imagine you were arrested and the government seized your childhood home because you were allegedly conducting illegal activities out of it. Imagine if after you were later found innocent, the government handed you a wad of cash instead of the keys to your home. Apparently they sold it because they thought that the price they could get for it was really good. Maybe they were right about the price, maybe they were wrong, but either way it wouldn't be okay.
  It's one thing if they did it with his mutual consent, but if they did this without consulting him it's rather unconscionable.
6. Re:Makes sense to me by omnichad · 2017-12-15 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  since that profit would naturally have accrued to the owner if they hadn't interfered.
  We don't know that the owner would have made the same choices. Wait till BTC crashes and re-buy 513 BTC / 512 BCH and return the same that was taken if he was proven innocent. Make a nice profit for the American people.
7. Re:Makes sense to me by thegarbz · 2017-12-15 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  If they wait and the bubble pops
  How about waiting until the person is found guilty before selling off his assets?
8. Re:Makes sense to me by JesseMcDonald · 2017-12-15 11:47 · Score: 1
  
  We don't know that the owner would have made the same choices.
  Doesn't matter. If they were able to turn a profit then it stands to reason that the owner could have done the same. Either way they are responsible for taking away that choice from someone they never proved guilty of any crime. Making their victim whole involves more than just the return of the original property; they have a responsibility to render the accused at least as well off as they might plausibly have become had the property never been seized.
  On the other hand, you appear to be suggesting that the government should profit from their seizure of property from a (presumably) innocent person, at their expense, having failed to prove their case. As such, you can't possibly be serious.
  
  --
  "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
9. Re:Makes sense to me by BlueStrat · 2017-12-15 12:19 · Score: 1
  
  This means you can be arrested on a drug charge, and before the test comes back about whether those pills in your pocket were ibuprofen or crack, the police have sold your car and bought a new set of hats for the whole department.
  It's far worse.
  They don't have to arrest you or charge you with any crime. They can (and often do) stop interstate motorists and seize cash/valuables, then send the motorists on their way with no arrests, no charges against the person(s) involved.
  They've created this legal fiction from whole cloth that inanimate objects break laws all on their own and can be charged with violating laws as if they were sentient, self-determining/self-willed, and aware. It would be totally laughable on it's face if it didn't result in so many innocent people being forced to go through tragedy, loss, and suffering for simply being perfectly peaceful and law-abiding people that had money that cops could seize because fuck you.
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
10. Re:Makes sense to me by omnichad · 2017-12-15 14:34 · Score: 1
  
  If they had seized US Dollars that could have been invested, they'll only return the same amount of US Dollars and probably without interest. By that theory, Bitcoin should be returned as-is, coin for coin - regardless of its relative value to some other standard.
Yeah this will work out great. by o_ferguson · 2017-12-15 07:05 · Score: 1

Remember when they sold the 700,000 BTC they seized from silk road for $13m? Good times...

--
- In Soviet Korea, only old people loose all their bases to Natalie Portman's petrified hot grits overlords.
1. Re: Yeah this will work out great. by omnichad · 2017-12-15 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  On the other hand, if they tried to sell that much now they would single-handedly tank its value. Investors would panic, not knowing why so much is being sold.
2. Re: Yeah this will work out great. by o_ferguson · 2017-12-15 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  That is what the market needs, honestly. The BTC deflation is out-of-control exponentially-irrational in a hyperbolic manner.
  
  --
  - In Soviet Korea, only old people loose all their bases to Natalie Portman's petrified hot grits overlords.
Re:Assuming the guy isn't... by jfdavis668 · 2017-12-15 07:26 · Score: 1

Unless they had a warrant, then it was a lawful search and seizure.
it's not 10.000,00 lbs of ham... by Thud457 · 2017-12-15 07:33 · Score: 1

The guy hasn't had his trial yet.
What they should do is hold onto the seized assets. Return them to him if he is found not guilty, do what the law allows if he is found guilty.

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
1. Re:it's not 10.000,00 lbs of ham... by sl3xd · 2017-12-15 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  What they should do is hold onto the seized assets. Return them to him if he is found not guilty, do what the law allows if he is found guilty.
  You clearly do not understand civil forfeiture. There are only three states which require conviction for forfeiture. In 46 states, if there's enough evidence to go to trial, your property is forfeit -- win or lose. (Many states require enough evidence for a search warrant to forfeit property -- and that's all.).
  If you are found innocent, your odds of seeing one red cent again are comical.
  Unsurprisingly, politicians are split two ways over the issue, and we get to vote for a candidate:
  * A candidate who will "tax and spend" to fund law enforcement through taxes alone, and expects law enforcement to be self-motivated in their job.
  * A candidate who "cuts government spending", and motivates law enforcement to fund their departments by finding bad guys, and seizing the bad guy's property.
  
  --
  -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
What they gotta do they gotta do by AlanObject · 2017-12-15 07:50 · Score: 1

I can't say why this pops into my head while reading this article, but I am reminded of how the history of the federal bureaucracy includes times where they managed brothels in Nevada as an ongoing business after seizing them as part of tax enforcement action.
I guess it is because for some reason it doesn't seem that the Feds have any business trading Bitcoins either.
1. Re:What they gotta do they gotta do by sl3xd · 2017-12-15 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  Until recently, Utah (the state in TFA) requires "dealers in possession of a controlled substance must purchase and affix drug tax stamps to the controlled substance." (Story covering the repeal)
  Yes, some stamp collectors have been able to buy the stamps. Collectors that apply for them are given a complimentary and thorough in-home audit.
  
  --
  -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
and FURTHERMORE... by Thud457 · 2017-12-15 07:58 · Score: 1

These civil forfeiture cases usually involve a suit against the anonymous assets, so most likely somewhere on some docket is "The United States vs some very long number".
JESUS H FUCKING CHRIST ON A POGOSTICK YOU'VE ALL GONE GODDAMNED INSANE.

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Re:Morality not included by Sperbels · 2017-12-15 08:23 · Score: 1

Liquidating the position before there is a trial seems unjustified.
They do it all the time.
~5% drop. by gatfirls · 2017-12-15 08:35 · Score: 1

A market order of that size (which is relatively small) will drop the price around 5%, that should put things in perspective for people but it won't.
Good thing this person: https://pineapplefund.org/ is altruistic because if they unloaded all of their bitcoin in a market order he would drop the price around 60%.
People are going to get crushed when the bottom fall out of this thing. It's not going to be pretty.
Re:Transfer time? by freeze128 · 2017-12-15 08:59 · Score: 1

So the suspect either:

1) didn't password protect his wallet
or
2) told the government his wallet password.

I think we all know whose fault this is.
Bigger problem by BankRobberMBA · 2017-12-15 09:03 · Score: 2

The problem with this rationale is that it is the Prosecution who asserts that this is probably ill-gotten wealth, often using the successful acquisition of an indictment as proof of probable cause for seizure. Once they get a judge to agree, assets are seized.
In the US justice system, money improves outcomes for defendants. Now the defendant cannot use those assets to pay for a defense. This is fine if the assets ARE proceeds of crime, but what about when they aren't?
The defendant has not yet been proven guilty (although the odds of a conviction just went through the roof). What happened to "Innocent until..."? This specific case may look like an OK outcome, but this becomes a precedent for future cases where the defendants are more sympathetic and/or the guilt more uncertain. (This is how we wound up with lifetime criminal registries being possible - they first used them on pedophiles.)
Sadly, some appellate courts have explicitly ruled that the government 'has the right to deny defendants the means to pay for their defense.'
Asset forfeiture by BankRobberMBA · 2017-12-15 09:14 · Score: 1

Typically, the organization that did the seizing gets to keep it. This motivates a lot of the roadside vehicle searches by sheriff's deputies and highway patrol officers. These guys often seize cash in the $5,000 - $10,000 range. This money stays in their local department, and because it is not from a budget line-item, they are generally allowed to spend it on whatever they want, like espresso machines and video-game consoles for the break room. The former owners of this money will struggle to get it back, even if it's completely legit. Note that there is no requirement of a criminal charge for them to seize this, they just have to find it.
At the Federal level, things get more complex. It seems like they have a dedicated office for processing seizures, but it's probably because so many of their seizures are gigantic.
No, it's a tax (and fine for noncompliance) by sl3xd · 2017-12-15 09:18 · Score: 1

The government sells the assets that were obtained by selling contraband. So it is actually like the government just sold a bunch of drugs.
No, somebody sold contraband, and the government collected taxes & fines.
Utah (the state in TFA) requires "dealers in possession of a controlled substance must purchase and affix drug tax stamps to the controlled substance."
There's literally a law requiring drug dealers to buy stamps from the state, and attach the stamps onto every packet of drugs sold.
As with most taxes, there are severe penalties for noncompliance.

--
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
Volatile? by M.D.Smith · 2017-12-15 09:36 · Score: 1

Selling his 513 bitcoins? Isn't that like 8.4 million in dollars? Shouldn't they hold onto the 7.6 million instead? I mean, what happens if that 9.3 million in bitcoin is liquidated and the man is innocent? They'll have a hard time paying back that 6.7 million.
Re:The real question by sl3xd · 2017-12-15 09:37 · Score: 1

Ever consider the BTC may be stored in a US based exchange like coinbase who store over 98% of the assets "for their customers security"?
If the exchange is in the US, they'd no doubt have to turn over the BTC (or its cash equivalent) or face federal money laundering charges.

--
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
Dude lived around the corner from me by Sgt_Jake · 2017-12-15 09:51 · Score: 1

And I almost bought the house across the street from him. No, he didn't share. Rude.
Not Guilty - then what? by superdave80 · 2017-12-15 11:01 · Score: 1

" ...his trial has not yet been scheduled. " Soooo... what happens if he is never convicted, and the government has to return his assets? They no longer have the bitcoins, and if the price doubles between now and then, they would be out millions of dollars to repurchase them to return. And if they say, "Here is the original money we made of the bitcoins", he could rightly argue in court that he was not returned what was taken.
Re:pop! by Kaenneth · 2017-12-15 21:24 · Score: 1

they are raising awareness that BTC has real value.
Some Damned Foolish Thing In The Rockies by BobSteinVisiBone · 2017-12-16 06:31 · Score: 1

It'll be something dumb like this that sets of the big sell-off and crypto-crash.

--
Bob Stein, http://bobste.in