221–230 of 256 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, the blockchain is a fantastic resource for Feds prosecuting financial crimes. In order to get away with these things you need to have flawless opsec, because the moment they can connect one thing to you everything quickly unravels.
For me it's now Monero or nothing.
The question for me is: why US? He is a Russian citizen, the company is based in Bulgaria, servers in Russia, legal HQ in Cyprus and all the services operated from Seychelles - arrested in Greece. The MtGox hack affected a Japanese company. I'm not debating the nature of the crimes, etc - I am just wondering, when does it become a US case? I can get the "there were US customers" - but why not Europe? Or Japan? Or Rus…
The "why" is just "because the DoJ made a case before Europe or Japan". The "how" is just extradition. Greece was willing to extradite him to the US to face these charges. The US would do the same with Greece, though not with Russia as we lack an extradition treaty with Russia (and probably not to face a charge that would be a clear first amendment violation anyway).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It gets better: while criminal charges for illegal banking practices are part of United States Code (title 18 covers crimes), the banking REGULATIONS that one must adhere to are codified at the State level. This means you must apply for 50 or so different licenses in order to legally do business as a Money Transfer Agent and Money Services Busimess in the United States. Although it seems overly burdensome and deliber…
You can cover >25% of the US population in just the top 3 states (CA, TX, NY). The system isn't that strange, almost every business in the US is primarily regulated by the states. What's strange is that most Americans don't realize this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That seems pretty bogus. You're telling me that you think if I operate a front business and help human traffickers launder their money (thereby helping them to cover up their crime), but don't involve myself with human trafficking itself, I've done nothing wrong, and prosecuting me would be morally indefensible?
Yes, the money laundering part should not be prosecutable as long as you weren't involved in any crime. The very concept that not telling the government about everything you do financially is somehow a crime is simply abhorrent.
That is the thing: if you are knowingly working with criminals to perform their crime then you are involved in crime:
Case 1: Planning the getaway from a bank robbery. Driving the getaway car.
Criminal? yes
Case 2: Driving a taxi with a person who happened to have robbed a bank earlier that day. Getting paid in stolen cash.
Criminal? no
Case 3: Helping to carry and hide away stolen goods or physical money when you know they are stolen.
Criminal: yes
Case 4: Helping someone with anything just because you are a nice guy/gal. Afterwards it turns out you assisted in a major art heist without knowing.
Criminal: no
Case 5: Helping to launder stolen money or money from trafficking when you know or should know[0] the source.
Criminal: yes
Case 6: well at this point you either get it or not.
The very concept that not telling the government about everything you do financially is somehow a crime is simply abhorrent.
Actually here we somewhat agree. As much as I am a fan of paying tax and avoiding criminality I'm also a huge fan of cash. :-)
[0]: (Actually it is stricter now - borderline hilarious as my bank for the last twn years starts asking for my passport because of the KYC rules)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, the money laundering part should not be prosecutable as long as you weren't involved in any crime. The very concept that not telling the government about everything you do financially is somehow a crime is simply abhorrent.
Yes, the money laundering part should not be prosecutable as long as you weren't involved in any crime. That is the thing: if you are knowingly working with criminals to perform their crime then you are involved in crime : Case 1: Planning the getaway from a bank robbery. Driving the getaway car. Criminal? yes Case 2: Driving a taxi with a person who happened to have robbed a bank earlier that day. Getting paid in st…
Anyways yes if you are working with the criminals that's one thing. Running a BTC exchange, if you aren't inquiring about the customers funds (you shouldn't, it's none of your business!) then it should be no issue. If you somehow know the BTC was stolen from Mt Gox, then yeah, you're helping with the hack and should be charged for that (not for money laundering, just for whatever the general charge is as a participant to a crime).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like this guy http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/man-removed-from-aero...
what ever happened to him? the news with his name stops the day he was arrested.
That's usually a good sign that nothing exciting happened; business as usual.
He was arrested in early June and by early July was on parole with family in Seattle:
http://databank.isranet.org/article.asp?article=64465
After which terror charges were never filed and the gov't began seeking deportation on extraordinarily pedestrian grounds, with his lawyer speaking publicly about the case:
http://www.kolkenandkolken.com/index.php?src=news&srctype=de...
Can't find anything after that, but he's not listed in the USCIS's Online Detainee Locator System and AFAIK could not have been legally deported to Somalia.
WikiLeaks documents on him, combined with other sources, paint a picture that he's either a) a somewhat prolific terrorist/human trafficker; or b) a politically active Muslim immigrant in the USA who might be kinda sorta guilty of some clerical crimes and may've acted a teensy bit dodgy when returning to the USA. (b) is probably way more likely given that DHS was apparently OK releasing him on parole.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In many countries, it is illegal for lawyers to charge a percentage of the obtained damages. But in the US, a lawyer can propose: "I'll help you suing this bastard for free if I get half of the awarded damages." This incentivizes US lawyers to be more confrontational and to seek higher damages than anywhere else. Edit, found this: "FinCEN today assessed a $110 million civil money penalty against BTC-e for willfully v…
> But in the US, a lawyer can propose: "I'll help you suing this bastard for free if I get half of the awarded damages." This incentivizes US lawyers to be more confrontational and to seek higher damages than anywhere else. But it also gives poor people a chance to sue someone big, because their lawyer isnt asking for a fixed fee.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, the money laundering part should not be prosecutable as long as you weren't involved in any crime. That is the thing: if you are knowingly working with criminals to perform their crime then you are involved in crime : Case 1: Planning the getaway from a bank robbery. Driving the getaway car. Criminal? yes Case 2: Driving a taxi with a person who happened to have robbed a bank earlier that day. Getting paid in st…
>[0]: (Actually it is stricter now - borderline hilarious as my bank for the last twn years starts asking for my passport because of the KYC rules) That's an issue, isn't it? Everyone can easily be in violation. Anyways yes if you are working with the criminals that's one thing. Running a BTC exchange, if you aren't inquiring about the customers funds (you shouldn't, it's none of your business!) then it should be no…
Here we agree. If they knew or should have known then they are guilty.
(not for money laundering, just for whatever the general charge is as a participant to a crime).
I think this is what money laundering originally meant:
Washing dirty money by for example using them to pay shell companies who again pay "clean" companies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As others have noted, the US didn't just make up jurisdiction here or declare that they can prosecute anything anywhere -- the charges include an allegation that he transferred stolen BTC to a US-based company. That creates a crime the US has jurisdiction to prosecute. It really is time for people to stop being gobsmacked at the idea that once you get entangled with an entity in a particular country, anything you do…
You haven't really explained or justified anything. "Them's the rules!!!" What if Thailand wanted to extradite you because you joked about their king on HN? You would just laugh, not make a point about "well, what do you expect when you challenge a nation's royal sovereignty? Have some respect on the internet! Thailand takes this very seriously."
But it isn't. If the guy were in the US and had done something illegal and involved Greek citizens or a Greek company, the US would almost certainly extradite to Greece to let them prosecute him. Extradition treaties, and jurisdiction over crimes that involve a country's citizens or other entities of that country's laws (such as corporations it's chartered) are incredibly normal bog-standard boring well-established concepts in law. Nobody should be surprised that this guy is getting extradited.
So: can Thailand extradite you if you happen to say something about the king? Nope. And that's not even close as an analogy. What if you printed a bunch of insulting leaflets and mailed them to your colleagues in Thailand to distribute, and also wired money into a Thai bank to support the campaign, and also hacked some Thai-hosted websites to put up disparaging messages, though? Would you be willing to admit that at least some of that creates a crime under Thai law that you committed, and that elements of what you did took place at least partly in Thailand, thus giving them jurisdiction and a reason to extradite (though extradition often requires both countries to view the act as illegal under their own laws, so the extradition is unlikely to succeed)? I'd hope you would.
But this is HN, where we clutch our pearls and gasp any time the real world teaches us that "But I did it on the internet! There can't be jurisdiction for the internet!" isn't an argument accepted by courts of just about any country.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, the money laundering part should not be prosecutable as long as you weren't involved in any crime. That is the thing: if you are knowingly working with criminals to perform their crime then you are involved in crime : Case 1: Planning the getaway from a bank robbery. Driving the getaway car. Criminal? yes Case 2: Driving a taxi with a person who happened to have robbed a bank earlier that day. Getting paid in st…
>[0]: (Actually it is stricter now - borderline hilarious as my bank for the last twn years starts asking for my passport because of the KYC rules) That's an issue, isn't it? Everyone can easily be in violation. Anyways yes if you are working with the criminals that's one thing. Running a BTC exchange, if you aren't inquiring about the customers funds (you shouldn't, it's none of your business!) then it should be no…