Feds seized $311M in Bitcoin, then hacker stole it back

Post by bigiain » Wed, Oct 05, 2022, 9:12 AM UTC

ArnoVW wrote: post #123

bigiain wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So they'd seized a safe that contained a note saying where the money/Bitcoin were hidden, but they didn't have the combination to the safe, and they didn't know if anybody else had a copy of the note. Calling those "seized bitcoins" is definitely stretching the truth in my opinion. And the Government,ent/prosecution knew this - from the article: "As a backup, Trezor hardware wallets can generate a “seed phrase,” a co…

Seizing is a legal construct. It's not "I'm grabbing hold" seizing. It's the "I've had a judge validate that legally I am now the owner" variant.

Post by ForHackernews » Wed, Oct 05, 2022, 9:18 AM UTC

once_inc wrote: post #136

automatic6131 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The bitcoiner isn't going to hand over his coins for any reason (including torture, torture of family members, bribery, etc). Lol. Lmao, even. Let's just suppose a completely different kind of human.

People have died for less. You are assuming everyone has the same kind of morals and ethics as yourself.

Post by ForHackernews » Wed, Oct 05, 2022, 9:21 AM UTC

giancarlostoro wrote: post #42

cantSpellSober wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> as opposed to what? There are more words in that sentence. Are there other examples where someone "remotely [swiped] Bitcoin stored on a computer device the government had already seized in another case ?" They seem to define "stored on service" in this case as "accessible only with access to device." It's an interesting case: is it harder to recover physical assets from a police storage locker than digital?

> It's an interesting case because it's harder to recover physical assets from a police storage locker than digital. I feel like you missed the whole point the comment you replied to made. If the person who stored the cryptocoins on the physically seized computer had a copy of the private keys on another computer (COMPLETELY NORMAL) and the prosecutor never transferred the coins making the assumption that physically…

Post by vidarh » Wed, Oct 05, 2022, 9:29 AM UTC

ngcc_hk wrote: post #160

muricula wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Iran gets trotted out as a strawman in these arguments, but its government is really quite democratic compared to many US allies which have the mere trappings of democracy painted on a dictatorship. Iran has an elected president, and a parliament and multiple parties. As I understand it, the biggest issue with the government as a functioning democracy is that the unelected supreme council can prevent candidates from…

It is not a spectrum. USA and eu might be. But if someone above you can prevent your from running or electing then it is NOT democracy. Once you are free to do so then may I say no one promise heaven on earth. It is bad human and good in democracy. Sort it out. It is hard. But it is not the same as other sort it out for you.

Post by theGnuMe » Wed, Oct 05, 2022, 9:45 AM UTC

tomohawk wrote: post #156

iudqnolq wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I understand it your (incorrect) reading of 241 is that when the government securely holds your property pending the final outcome of your trial that violates the clause of 241 that forbids a conspiracy to "injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person". If that was true detaining a person would be a much more serious violation than detaining your property. Now I happen to believe that pretrial detention is…

On the other hand, feds routinely seize defendants assets to prevent them from being able to pay for robust legal defense. Those assets aren't going to harm anyone, so the case for seizing them is much weaker than holding someone accused of violence in jail. In this specific case, the assets are alleged ill-gotten gains, but often that is not the case at all. It doesn't seem to be a stretch that the feds "securely ho…