Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

BTC-e and its founder charged in 21-count indictment over hack of Mt. Gox

justice.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 256 posts

Re: BTC-e and its founder charged in 21-count indictment over hack of Mt. Gox

#231

Post by s73ver »

atemerev wrote: post #163
piaste wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money laundering is knowingly assisting criminal activities. You're actively hiding where the money comes from, exactly because you know it comes from illegal sources. (If the source were legal but embarrassing, all you'd need is standard bank privacy, not active laundering.) The car-related analogy isn't a car manufacturer. It isn't even an anonymous, stealth rental car service (although plenty of crimes could benef…

Like I said before, not everything that is illegal is wrong. In Germany, homeschooling is illegal. In Russia, telling teenagers that some people are gay and that's OK is illegal. The US law is a hodgepodge of contradicting legal statements which are different in different states, and many things can be counted as legal or illegal based on your wealth, political connections, race, or just luck. Law is not a bright shi…

"Like I said before, not everything that is illegal is wrong."

But things that are illegal are... illegal.

Nobody in this thread is really debating the morality of illegal actions we're talking about. And while debating morality can be entertaining, it doesn't really change what happened here.

Re: BTC-e and its founder charged in 21-count indictment over hack of Mt. Gox

#232

Post by s73ver »

MichaelGG wrote: post #197
emodendroket wrote: post #180

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.

"Yes, the money laundering part should not be prosecutable as long as you weren't involved in any crime."

Aiding criminal activity, which money laundering most assuredly is, is itself a crime.

Re: BTC-e and its founder charged in 21-count indictment over hack of Mt. Gox

#233

Post by quickthrower2 »

hellbanner wrote: post #160
quickthrower2 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That comment is very general though. Exchanging bitcoins for cash, gold, diamonds for example would be harder to trace.

Exchanging BTC for cash, gold or diamonds is much more difficult ( and there's a higher perceived danger ). How would you go about trading your BTC for diamonds? Btc-to-diamonds.website ? If it's online, it's tracked by 5 eyes Tor? 5-eyes is even more interested Craigslist? Great, go meet a stranger in a parking lot and gamble that you don't get robbed. The comment is general but it's right. As it & other posters in…

If you are in the underworld you know people who you can do dealings with. Effectively a dark pool. Dark in both senses of the word.

Re: BTC-e and its founder charged in 21-count indictment over hack of Mt. Gox

#234

Post by ryanlol »

mikeyouse wrote: post #201
always_good wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Although I don't understand the US's involvement in this -- a man breaking the rules is being put to justice, and I'm very glad. This is a terrifying comment. Not much different than a Thai person saying the same about a German rotting in their jail because he offended their king on Twitter. "Justice!"

Because insulting someone and stealing millions of dollars are equal somehow?

Whose money did BTC-e steal?

Re: BTC-e and its founder charged in 21-count indictment over hack of Mt. Gox

#235

Post by idonotknowwhy »

mikob wrote: post #60

Although I don't understand the US's involvement in this -- a man breaking the rules is being put to justice, and I'm very glad. I'm also impressed by the feds work in the cryptocurrency space. In recent years the fed has really started to reverse the trope of the government not being technologically adept. There are too many that become wealthy through illicit means and it's good news that something effective is bei…

Tell that to the innocent customers who've had their funds (bitcoin and altcoins) frozen.

Re: BTC-e and its founder charged in 21-count indictment over hack of Mt. Gox

#236

Post by idonotknowwhy »

always_good wrote: post #184
mikob wrote: post #60

Although I don't understand the US's involvement in this -- a man breaking the rules is being put to justice, and I'm very glad. I'm also impressed by the feds work in the cryptocurrency space. In recent years the fed has really started to reverse the trope of the government not being technologically adept. There are too many that become wealthy through illicit means and it's good news that something effective is bei…

>Although I don't understand the US's involvement in this -- a man breaking the rules is being put to justice, and I'm very glad. This is a terrifying comment. Not much different than a Thai person saying the same about a German rotting in their jail because he offended their king on Twitter. "Justice!"

> Not much different than a Thai person saying the same about a German rotting in their jail because he offended their king on Twitter. "Justice!"

I agree. Good luck trying to explain that to idiots like mikeyouse (commented just before me) who miss the point entirely lol.

Re: BTC-e and its founder charged in 21-count indictment over hack of Mt. Gox

#237

Post by idonotknowwhy »

benwilber0 wrote: post #57
ryanlol wrote: post #2

There's been no mentions of coin seizures anywhere as far as I can tell. Usually you'd see some boasting about that. Perhaps these guys were actually smart about their cold storage?

Page 6 article 20 says they operated their servers in the United States. If that's true then I'm pretty sure they've already been seized. They were probably on aws

In which case, maybe they also have a copy of the private keys in Russia, and can move the funds somewhere safe.

Re: BTC-e and its founder charged in 21-count indictment over hack of Mt. Gox

#238

Post by codedokode »

piaste wrote: post #125
atemerev wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. And cars manufacturers assist kidnappers and bank robbers escapes. And cell phones can be used as remote detonators. And end-to-end cryptography... no, this is an abomination , you shouldn't even think of it unless you willingly submit your private keys to the appropriate government agency for safe escrow to aid lawful investigations! (I would have put /s here, but all these lines will be used at face value so…

Money laundering is knowingly assisting criminal activities. You're actively hiding where the money comes from, exactly because you know it comes from illegal sources. (If the source were legal but embarrassing, all you'd need is standard bank privacy, not active laundering.) The car-related analogy isn't a car manufacturer. It isn't even an anonymous, stealth rental car service (although plenty of crimes could benef…

> Money laundering is knowingly assisting criminal activities. You're actively hiding where the money comes from, exactly because you know it comes from illegal sources. (If the source were legal but embarrassing, all you'd need is standard bank privacy, not active laundering.)

Building an encrypted messaging app is knowingly assisting crimial activities ... all you'd need is standard communication privacy laws, not actual encryption.

Re: BTC-e and its founder charged in 21-count indictment over hack of Mt. Gox

#239

Post by icebraining »

khuey wrote: post #194
dkersten wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point was just that TradeHill, being the US entity, is the one in the US jurisdiction and that a criminal doing business with them doesn’t magically fall under US jurisdiction. I’ve no problem with BTC-e or whoever getting arrested, since they were clearly criminals, but I am concerned about US laws becoming a thing that applies to non-US citizens outside of the US (the implication in the comment I replied to bein…

Clearing laundered money through a US bank is more than sufficient for US jurisdiction to apply. You can choose not to like it but this is well established case law.

Case law, where? In the US? That's a circular argument, since it's exactly the validity of US law on foreign soil that's being discussed. To cite Monty Python, "if I went 'round sayin' I was Emperor, just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!"

Likewise, if some random country made a bunch of case law in its own courts establishing that foreign nationals in other countries were to be punished for making heretical texts available to citizens of that country, we'd laugh at them, not say "well, the case law is well established" and extradite our citizens.

Re: BTC-e and its founder charged in 21-count indictment over hack of Mt. Gox

#240

Post by PeterisP »

Jabanga wrote: post #133
modeless wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at the actual charges in the indictment. All the BTC-e stuff is not what he's charged with. He's charged with transferring stolen Mt Gox Bitcoins to Tradehill, a San Francisco based exchange (now defunct). That's the US connection that will seal his extradition. They also allege that BTC-e is (at least partially) hosted in the US and does business with many US companies, which is likely true. But that's not what…

>Subsequently I expect to see Monero delisted from any exchange that follows KYC after some pressure from law enforcement. This would be a very dangerous precedent for the cause of privacy. It's the financial equivalent of banning encrypted communication.

There's no dangerous precedent/slippery slope - in the financial world offering a money transfer service to anonymous customers is already banned, that's what KYC/AML laws are intended to do. There's no right to trade anonymously and for large transactions legitimate businesses are required to identify you and not accept anonymous customers (KYC requirement).

It doesn't necessarily mean prohibiting anonymous instruments like physical cash or Monero, but it means that any non-small use of such instruments is required to be accompanied with documents about the transaction.

E.g. you can legally sell stuff for a briefcase of cash, but you're required to declare the transaction, including the identity of that person (e.g., in USA, IRS form 8300 for cash amounts exceeding $10000; you can legally sell stuff online for Monero or whatever other consideration, but if it's a significant amount, then you are required to identify the person even if the payment instrument is anonymous.

Post reply on HN