Quoted post unavailable.
lmao, even
Feds seized $311M in Bitcoin, then hacker stole it back
71–80 of 229 posts
Re: Feds seized $311M in Bitcoin, then hacker stole it back
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s a moot point. If BTC is seized or forfeited to the US government, and the (co-)owner later transfers them out of the original wallet, it will likely only accomplish the addition of felony criminal charges. It is an assist to the federal prosecutors. Case in point, Gary Harmon, who probably wouldn’t be on trial otherwise.
um... $311M will set you up _very well_ for life in many, MANY countries. you just need to get to one without US extradition (or without US extradition for this activity). So, very worth the extra criminal charge if you've been thinking ahead.
In the very unlikely dream scenario you mention, you are alone in a disreputable nation with no connections. You are weak and a tempting target for blackmail, robbery, kidnapping, and extortion. A bounty is placed on your head by the most powerful nation in the history of the world.
You would think the failed track record of knowledgeable criminals like Gary and Ulbricht would convince the crypto-anarchist losers that their fantasies are implausible, but for some reason it never happens.
Re: Feds seized $311M in Bitcoin, then hacker stole it back
#73It's not immediately clear to me that this is illegal. If anything, the Feds didn't "seize" the Bitcoin, they forcibly acquired a license to the wallet's private key. If they didn't understand that the license was non-exclusive, well, that's not the fault of the other licensees.
> not immediately clear to me that this is illegal
Seizure is a legal term. A yacht registered in the Marshall Islands docked in Antigua can be announced seized even before it's physically secured. Stealing that yacht and claiming YOLO isn't a valid defense.
Re: Feds seized $311M in Bitcoin, then hacker stole it back
#7480% of the way through the article you can read what actually happened. It's not that the Feds were incompetent and kept a "seized wallet" thinking only they had the private keys or something like that. The wallets were simply protected by a passphrase and Larry couldn't be compelled to give the passphrase. The feds even told the judge they didn't have control of the funds and they could be moved to family/friends be…
Which means the feds didn't actually seize anything. A copy of the wallet without the passphrase is nothing. If the feds don't have the keys, they don't have the coins. It sounds like Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy - the feds declared "I seize Bitcoin" but nothing happened.
> Which means the feds didn't actually seize anything
Seizure is tied to possession, a legal concept [1]. Not control. Courts commonly authorize the seizure assets not yet under the government's physical control. (I agree the terminology is misleading.)
Re: Feds seized $311M in Bitcoin, then hacker stole it back
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
So let's flip it: how long will it stay that way: where law enforcement is unaware they've left ostensibly seized assets unsecured?
that goes right back to OPs point. If LEO are leaving these "seized" assets unsecured, they are simply not qualified to be doing what they are doing. To directly answer your question, forever. Policing is sufficiently distributed and poor at retaining or integrating new knowledge that I am sure we will see these amateur-hour mistakes being made for as long as crypto exists in its current form. Modern policing has not…
> forever
Good! Nothing to worry about then? Our coins are forever un-seizeable?
Robert Peel? Nuance please.
Re: Feds seized $311M in Bitcoin, then hacker stole it back
#76> Agents built a detailed financial picture of Larry. Inspecting his cloud accounts... Scariest part of the article.
scary? did you just wake from a 15 year coma? you store anything in a big-corp cloud, which you haven't personally encrypted, with keys that only you possess, then assume it's all backed up in fed repos (somewhat hyperbolic, especially for non-crims, but not far fetched by any means) that's neither new, nor news (sadly)
I never said it was new nor news, I said it was scary.
Re: Feds seized $311M in Bitcoin, then hacker stole it back
#77> He used most as collateral for a $1.2 million loan. Some of that went to buy a luxury condo in Cleveland , prosecutors said. ahahah Gary coming through with the oxymorons
Hey...laundering cash in CLE is hard!
Re: Feds seized $311M in Bitcoin, then hacker stole it back
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which means the feds didn't actually seize anything. A copy of the wallet without the passphrase is nothing. If the feds don't have the keys, they don't have the coins. It sounds like Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy - the feds declared "I seize Bitcoin" but nothing happened.
> Which means the feds didn't actually seize anything Seizure is tied to possession, a legal concept [1]. Not control. Courts commonly authorize the seizure assets not yet under the government's physical control. (I agree the terminology is misleading.) [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/seizure
That's good to know!
But the title is the part that is so misleading that it's essentially inaccurate - you can't steal something back that was never taken away.
This would be like the feds "seizing" a car, and you drive it away before they actually come take possession of it. Hardly stealing it back, they simply never had it.
Re: Feds seized $311M in Bitcoin, then hacker stole it back
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which means the feds didn't actually seize anything. A copy of the wallet without the passphrase is nothing. If the feds don't have the keys, they don't have the coins. It sounds like Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy - the feds declared "I seize Bitcoin" but nothing happened.
> Which means the feds didn't actually seize anything Seizure is tied to possession, a legal concept [1]. Not control. Courts commonly authorize the seizure assets not yet under the government's physical control. (I agree the terminology is misleading.) [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/seizure
Ok, but they still didn’t actually seize anything. This is like saying they seized your bank account because they took the wallet which has your debit card in it.
Re: Feds seized $311M in Bitcoin, then hacker stole it back
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
of course now anyone who can be traced to a wallet that interacts with these coins is now a criminal for receiving stolen goods, or obstruction of justice or probably a dozen other things.
A lot of crimes require mens rea , ie. being guilty would require knowing the bitcoins are shady.
And as the media keeps repeating bitcoin is heavily used for illicit & illegal activity so not only bitcoin itself (that none of the jury holds because those that hold it have been excluded, let alone any of them actually understand it) and then probably exchanging with very specific wallets in this case.. probably guilty despite what the defendant has to say for their actions..