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

For Sale: 50,000 Bitcoins

usmarshals.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 141 posts

Re: For Sale: 50,000 Bitcoins

#31

Post by chiph »

eyeareque wrote: post #20
ncallaway wrote: post #6

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 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.

Happens all the time. You can be driving along, get pulled over, and the cop claims the money in your wallet is the result of illegal activities (usually drug dealing), and takes it. You can get it back by winning the civil lawsuit that will get filed: "Hazzard County Sheriff's Office vs. $150"

Is this constitutional? Lots of people don't think so, but the cops believe it is.

Re: For Sale: 50,000 Bitcoins

#32

Post by cecilpl »

eyeareque wrote: post #20
ncallaway wrote: post #6

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 isn't right, but that's the reality of civil forfeiture in the United States.

Re: For Sale: 50,000 Bitcoins

#33

Post by dragonwriter »

tedunangst wrote: post #19
emhart wrote: post #5

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.

Actually, these bitcoins are ones that Ulbricht claims are his, not the (much larger) set of bitcoins that weren't on his personal hardware which were linked to DPR which he did not claim (and which were the subject of an earlier sale.)

Re: For Sale: 50,000 Bitcoins

#34

Post by sillysaurus3 »

eyeareque wrote: post #20
ncallaway wrote: post #6

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.

Let's be honest: There is zero chance that Ross William Ulbricht obtained those coins legally.

While that may be beside the point, a rousing speech about how asset forfeiture should be changed would resonate more strongly if the subject was someone other than a person who hired people to murder others.

Also, it seems like supreme court justices aren't going to turn against asset forfeiture any time soon, so there's really no way to stop the practice.

EDIT: It's interesting how far people are twisting my words. I made two assertions: One, that there is no way Ulbrict obtained those coins legally, so if you want to reform asset forfeiture, choosing Ulbrict as your mascot would be a tactical mistake. Two, that unless you can convince the supreme court justices to turn against asset forfeiture, the practice will not change.

If you're reading into my words more than those two assertions, you're reading too far.

Re: For Sale: 50,000 Bitcoins

#35

Post by waterlesscloud »

eyeareque wrote: post #20
ncallaway wrote: post #6

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.

He claimed ownership and agreed to allow them to be sold due to the volatility of the market. The proceeds will be held until the outcome of his case.

http://www.usmarshals.gov/assets/2014/dpr-bitcoins/order.pdf

Re: For Sale: 50,000 Bitcoins

#36

Post by whyenot »

giodamelio wrote: post #17
zwtaylor wrote: post #2

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?

My understanding is this. The government found a bunch of bitcoins on a computer that may or may not have belonged to Ross Ulbricht, so they asked him "Are all these bitcoins yours?". Ross can't say that they are without admitting his guilt, so the government auctions them off.

Your understanding is wrong. From the order:

WHEREAS, on or about December 12, 2013, Ulbricht filed a timely verified claim in this proceeding, asserting an ownership interest in the Computer Hardware Bitcoins

Re: For Sale: 50,000 Bitcoins

#37

Post by rhino369 »

ncallaway wrote: post #6
zwtaylor wrote: post #2

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?

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...

Technically, the burden is still on the state. However, the burden is much lower. The preponderance of evidence standard is used. That means if "more probable than not" that it was criminal proceeds the government wins.

Re: For Sale: 50,000 Bitcoins

#38

Post by dragonwriter »

zwtaylor wrote: post #2

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?

Its worth noting that while they have been seized, they have not yet been forfeited -- that action is ongoing. The sale was agreed to secure the value and protect the government and Ulbricht both from price volatility; the forfeiture action will continue against the sale proceeds.

Re: For Sale: 50,000 Bitcoins

#39

Post by ewang1 »

chiph wrote: post #31
eyeareque wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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. Happens all the time. You can be driving along, get pulled over, and the cop claims the money in your wallet is the result of illegal activities (usually drug dealing), and takes it. You can get it back by winning the civil lawsuit that will get filed: "Hazzard County Sheriff's Office…

They believe it is until it's their own assets on the line.

Re: For Sale: 50,000 Bitcoins

#40

Post by tedunangst »

dragonwriter wrote: post #33
tedunangst wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Actually, these bitcoins are ones that Ulbricht claims are his, not the (much larger) set of bitcoins that weren't on his personal hardware which were linked to DPR which he did not claim (and which were the subject of an earlier sale.)

Oh, my bad. Sorry. I thought this was selling off more of the earlier Silk Road stash, not the "personal collection". Should have read more carefully.
Post reply on HN