21–30 of 141 posts
I'll keep an eye out for this. I think the final price will reach quite close to the market price with no guarantee of being able to sell at that price. Still might be worthwhile for someone to build up their position considerably without spooking the exchanges.
I don't have a deep grasp of Civil Forfeiture but it seems like this is unusual considering DPR has not been convicted of anything yet. Is this part of a plea bargin or something similar?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
from the link, and their all caps treatment preserved: ON JANUARY 27, 2014, THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ENTERED A STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR INTERLOCUTORY SALE OF BITCOINS WHEREIN THE UNITED STATES AND ROSS WILLIAM ULBRICHT AGREED THAT THE UNITED STATES MAY SELL ANY PORTION OR ALL OF THE COMPUTER HARDWARE BITCOINS ON A DATE OR DATES IN A MANNER TO BE DETERMINED BY THE GOVERNM…
The "Computer Hardware Bitcoins" term is notable and I wonder to which statute it refers. What actions were taken or crime alleged where it would be important to characterize Bitcoins in this way? I speculate that Ulbrict needs funds to pay attorneys fees. It may be he stipulated to a portion (or all) of the BTC as his in-exchange for unfreezing the asset and permitting its sale.
(“COMPUTER HARDWARE BITCOINS”)
EDIT-
They're referred to that way in the stipulation agreement he made to allow them to be sold
(pdf) http://www.usmarshals.gov/assets/2014/dpr-bitcoins/order.pdf
I'll keep an eye out for this. I think the final price will reach quite close to the market price with no guarantee of being able to sell at that price. Still might be worthwhile for someone to build up their position considerably without spooking the exchanges.
[0] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-01/bitcoin-auction-end...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Civil forfeiture is different from criminal forfeiture in that it does _not_ require a guilty verdict. Civil forfeiture is against the _property_, and it puts the burden of proof on the owner of the property to prove that it was obtained legally. Here's another explanation of it that's probably better than mine: https://www.contributoria.com/issue/2014-08/539b517ba588a791...
So what happens if he legally obtained these bitcoins, but cannot prove that he did so? So he basically loses them before he even can prove that they are his or not? That doesn't seem right, it would make sense that the coins are held in an escrow status until he was proven guilty.. It seems to be a big loophole for the government to just go and steal whatever they want from you, before you've been proven guilty.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/06/john-oliver-civil-f...
Also this, an article mentioned in the show:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/st...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Civil forfeiture is different from criminal forfeiture in that it does _not_ require a guilty verdict. Civil forfeiture is against the _property_, and it puts the burden of proof on the owner of the property to prove that it was obtained legally. Here's another explanation of it that's probably better than mine: https://www.contributoria.com/issue/2014-08/539b517ba588a791...
So what happens if he legally obtained these bitcoins, but cannot prove that he did so? So he basically loses them before he even can prove that they are his or not? That doesn't seem right, it would make sense that the coins are held in an escrow status until he was proven guilty.. It seems to be a big loophole for the government to just go and steal whatever they want from you, before you've been proven guilty.
It's not, and there has actually been a low-level national (US) dialog on the subject over the last month.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/11/10/363102433/pol...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Civil forfeiture is different from criminal forfeiture in that it does _not_ require a guilty verdict. Civil forfeiture is against the _property_, and it puts the burden of proof on the owner of the property to prove that it was obtained legally. Here's another explanation of it that's probably better than mine: https://www.contributoria.com/issue/2014-08/539b517ba588a791...
So what happens if he legally obtained these bitcoins, but cannot prove that he did so? So he basically loses them before he even can prove that they are his or not? That doesn't seem right, it would make sense that the coins are held in an escrow status until he was proven guilty.. It seems to be a big loophole for the government to just go and steal whatever they want from you, before you've been proven guilty.
>So he basically loses them before he even can prove that they are his or not?
Yes goods are guilty until proven innocent in court.
>It seems to be a big loophole for the government to just go and steal whatever they want from you, before you've been proven guilty.
It kinda is. Watch the link.
I don't have a deep grasp of Civil Forfeiture but it seems like this is unusual considering DPR has not been convicted of anything yet. Is this part of a plea bargin or something similar?
WHEREAS, the Government and Ulbricht agree that, due to the volatile market for bitcoins, the Computer Hardware Bitcoins risk losing value during the pendency of the forfeiture proceedings;
WHEREAS, the Government and Ulbricht agree that the Computer Hardware Bitcoins are to be liquidated or sold by the Government before the conclusion of the forfeiture proceedings, with the net proceeds of the sale to be held as substitute res pending further order of this Court;
Earlier quoted context omitted.
from the link, and their all caps treatment preserved: ON JANUARY 27, 2014, THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ENTERED A STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR INTERLOCUTORY SALE OF BITCOINS WHEREIN THE UNITED STATES AND ROSS WILLIAM ULBRICHT AGREED THAT THE UNITED STATES MAY SELL ANY PORTION OR ALL OF THE COMPUTER HARDWARE BITCOINS ON A DATE OR DATES IN A MANNER TO BE DETERMINED BY THE GOVERNM…
The "Computer Hardware Bitcoins" term is notable and I wonder to which statute it refers. What actions were taken or crime alleged where it would be important to characterize Bitcoins in this way? I speculate that Ulbrict needs funds to pay attorneys fees. It may be he stipulated to a portion (or all) of the BTC as his in-exchange for unfreezing the asset and permitting its sale.
It doesn't refer to a statute. It is a short form to refer to what is described in long form in the first paragraph of the notice as "THE BITCOINS CONTAINED IN WALLET FILES THAT RESIDED ON CERTAIN COMPUTER HARDWARE BELONGING TO ROSS WILLIAM ULBRICHT". (The same long description, and the explicit linkage of the same short form to that long description, is in the linked Stipulation and Order from the court allowing the sale.)
The stipulation also refers to the reason -- Ulbricht and the Government agreed to the sale to convert the bitcoins into dollars to protect both parties from risk due to volatility; the bitcoins are not being forfeited at this time, the forfeiture action will continue with the proceeds of the sale as the subject property rather than the bitcoins themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
from the link, and their all caps treatment preserved: ON JANUARY 27, 2014, THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ENTERED A STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR INTERLOCUTORY SALE OF BITCOINS WHEREIN THE UNITED STATES AND ROSS WILLIAM ULBRICHT AGREED THAT THE UNITED STATES MAY SELL ANY PORTION OR ALL OF THE COMPUTER HARDWARE BITCOINS ON A DATE OR DATES IN A MANNER TO BE DETERMINED BY THE GOVERNM…
It is clearly in Ross's interests to permit the sale. He's not DPR, remember? So these aren't his bitcoins and he therefore doesn't care what happens to them.