Civil Forfeiture And Samurai Mixed Bitcoin \ stacker news ~bitcoin

pull down to refresh

Civil Forfeiture And Samurai Mixed Bitcoin

1690 sats \ 63 comments \ @siggy47 25 Apr bitcoin

Here is a link explaining the US civil forfeiture law which can be used to seize assets: https://www.justice.gov/afp/types-federal-forfeiture

Specifically, I'm talking about in rem forfeiture here:

In rem (against the property) court proceeding brought against property that was derived from or used to commit an offense, rather than against a person who committed an offense. Unlike criminal forfeiture, there is no criminal conviction required, although the government is still required to prove in court by a preponderance of evidence that the property was linked to criminal activity.

Theoretically, bitcoin that has been mixed could be deemed proceeds of a crime after yesterday's indictment. I don't know whether the government would pursue this course of action.

There are many instances where this in rem civil forfeiture has been used by governments to take property in what seems an unjust manner.

Here's the classic example:

A husband borrows his wife's car and solicits a prostitute. Prostitution is illegal, and the car is seized as property used in the commission of a crime. The car is seized, though the innocent wife owns it. The theory is that the action is brought against the car, not the wife.

view all related items

1091 sats \ 9 replies \ @Murch 25 Apr

I don’t understand how Civil Forfeiture is not outright unconstitutional. Objects don’t have agency, and people are innocent until proven guilty. How is taking anyone’s stuff without due process or compensation so widely tolerated?

62 sats \ 3 replies \ @siggy47 OP 25 Apr

When all this crap started I was practicing criminal defense law and thought for sure it would be declared unconstitutional. I was wrong. I was idealistic about the legal system back then too. Now it's a show circus just like politics. Those in power decide what outcome they want, then put it through the due process charade.

55 sats \ 2 replies \ @Cje95 25 Apr

I could be mistaken and if so let me know! Wasn’t one of the reasons it has become so common was because they were catching people and not freezing their assets and those people who were later convicted and ordered to pay restitution made there assets disappear?

I feel like I remember reading about that and so the government started doing the forfeiture stuff to try and prevent this from happening… could be completely wrong though!

1 sat \ 1 reply \ @siggy47 OP 25 Apr

I'm sure that was the supposed rationale, but it was just another example of government plunder.

55 sats \ 0 replies \ @Cje95 25 Apr

Yeah... I hate to say this but the only way I see this being corrected would be them (DOJ) seizing something and either lose it or mishandle it and it turns out to be some rich guy who was innocent. Then that guy takes them to court and this then gets bundled in with some criminal justice reform bill

101 sats \ 1 reply \ @Lux 25 Apr

The constitution doesn't protect slaves

110 sats \ 0 replies \ @Lux 25 Apr

https://rumble.com/v2zvxc2-the-rights-of-a-us-citizen.html

11 sats \ 0 replies \ @machuPikacchu 25 Apr

The fourth amendment in the bill of rights protects citizens against "unreasonable search and seizure." If the person isn't charged with a crime then from a legal standpoint any seizure seems unreasonable.

42 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 25 Apr

The constitution is a beautiful document powerless to stop the state. At best it is a point of argument. It has been dead for a long time.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @DEADBEEF 26 Apr

It absolutely should be ruled unconstitutional.

596 sats \ 5 replies \ @DarthCoin 25 Apr

What really bothers me from all this case is that is always talking about "laundering money" in dollars.

FFS, Samourai is not using dollars, is using bitcoin.

Nobody can prove any jurisdiction over bitcoin. Even from their own laws, bitcoin is not considered money, so where is the "laundering" if there are no money?
they weren't registered as "money transmitting service" that means they only provide a service to mix some numbers, nothing else. Also is a PRIVATE service, between private individuals, that have nothing to do with the PUBLIC sector. Gov have no business in a private trade.

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @_stacktoshi 25 Apr

The laundering charge probably won’t stick but there’s been a lot of precedent (end arounds by power hungry “justice” types) set about facilitating crimes that they shouldn’t have a problem prosecuting them on. But we need to push back as much as possible so that normies ask these questions and wake up to just how tyrannical their government has become.

The roads facilitate crime. Horrendous public school education facilitates crime. The government uses secrecy and privacy tools. We should continually highlight these double standards so that perhaps one day the crime “fighters” can go back to fighting actual crime.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xIlmari 25 Apr

Unfortunately, their definition of "money laundering" is extremely broad and encompasses any means and technologies used to obscure the criminal origin of money.

If you acquired gold on black market with "criminal money", then re-melted that gold into new, untraceable bars, sold that gold on a "legit" market, that would be money laundering, even though gold is not considered money.

Bitcoin and mixers is no different.

Not that I agree with this. Prosecute the man, not the property.

11 sats \ 2 replies \ @Cje95 25 Apr

You hit the nail on the head! Samourai was smart and didn't deal in USD which should have put them in the clear. It is a gross overstep by the DOJ.

To be honest, if the government wants to call BTC money though it would get rid of allllll the taxes that people face with it and that would be a huge win. Not that the government would ever want that but essentially the government is trying to call BTC money since USD wasn't used in the transactions so ya know the government cant tax money itself

1 sat \ 1 reply \ @DarthCoin 25 Apr

yes and they do not want that (recognize bitcoin as money), but they use these trickery like "money laundering", meanwhile they totally ignore this:

https://m.stacker.news/28166

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Cje95 25 Apr

Wells Fargo honestly blows my mind how not only did the screw up once big time with the phantom account but they are also consistently still getting fined billions! Why they haven't been stripped of their licenses and everyone in that company's C-suite thrown in jail is beyond me.

382 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 25 Apr

https://m.stacker.news/28100 https://m.stacker.news/28101 https://m.stacker.news/28102

222 sats \ 5 replies \ @Lux 25 Apr

in a civil forfeiture case, the government is the plaintiff, the property is considered the defendant

https://m.stacker.news/28103

exactly right

slaves are property

120 sats \ 3 replies \ @siggy47 OP 25 Apr

Here's a New Jersey state example: https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-unpublished/2006/a1694-04-opn.html

31 sats \ 2 replies \ @Lux 25 Apr

Thanks, I thought we were talking about the Scamurai case

130 sats \ 1 reply \ @siggy47 OP 25 Apr

Civil forfeiture cases are brought based on criminal prosecutions. So, there is a possibility that in the future we will see a caption something like "U..S. v. .16 bitcoin mixed on Samourai wallet on July 23,2023"

100 sats \ 0 replies \ @Lux 25 Apr

There is a possibility, but until the Scamurai guys rebut points 2 and 3, and/or request a trial by jury of their peers there's no need

https://m.stacker.news/28109

120 sats \ 0 replies \ @Natalia 25 Apr

😂😂😂😂😂

128 sats \ 27 replies \ @Undisciplined 25 Apr

I've been saying that civil forfeiture is the biggest threat to us (bitcoiners). Do you share that view?

38 sats \ 3 replies \ @siggy47 OP 25 Apr

I haven't given it much thought until now. I should have.

84 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined 25 Apr

I wasn't thinking about this money transmitter issue, specifically.

My concern is that they'll start opportunistically seizing any bitcoin that was allegedly used in a crime, regardless of whether the current owners are alleged to have been involved.

243 sats \ 1 reply \ @siggy47 OP 25 Apr

Yes. Definitely. I see this also bringing about good and bad bitcoin, with fungibility out the window.

132 sats \ 0 replies \ @Scoresby 25 Apr

This is the main concern for me. The more addresses that get sanctioned by govts, the more it puts pressure on the main value proposition of bitcoin.

We already have some loss of fungibility but it's mostly at the off-ramp level.

Would ofac adding every output from a whirlpool coinjoin to their list bring the matter to a head? It certainly would be a big mess. How far away from a coinjoin output could they argue is "connected"?

69 sats \ 22 replies \ @Fabs 25 Apr

And how exactly is that going to be a threat against self-custody bitcoiners?

20 sats \ 21 replies \ @Undisciplined 25 Apr

There a couple of different things I'm concerned about.

One would be that someone upstream from you is accused of a crime that allegedly involved bitcoin: maybe you sold your used car to them, which connects you to them financially. Then the feds can claim that you're in possession of stolen property.

What I'm more worried about is that there could be some sort of certifying agency for "clean bitcoin". That could dramatically reduce the ability to use your bitcoin, because everyone who wants to stay on the right side of the state will only transact in those approved bitcoin.

68 sats \ 6 replies \ @Fabs 25 Apr

Oh come on, I'd like to call the above BS, which it still is, IMHO, but the stupidity of today's average Joe and his longing for "compliance" with "the law" wouldn't make the above totally unthinkable.

Still, this is a human problem, and has nothing to do with Bitcoin's inherent usability and fungibility.

1 sat \ 5 replies \ @Undisciplined 25 Apr

On a long enough time horizon, I agree. However, in the short-term this could dramatically impact usability and fungibility.

The dollar is not going down without a fight and there's no chance they're going to play fair.

38 sats \ 4 replies \ @Fabs 25 Apr freebie

Then we ain't gonna play fair either, fuck them.

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @Undisciplined 25 Apr

We definitely shouldn't. My point though is that talking about legality and other such concepts is not relevant, here.

When they start to feel threatened, they will lash out and there will be real people who get crushed.

68 sats \ 2 replies \ @Fabs 25 Apr

As in: the state breaks it's own laws, and it wouldn't be the first time, ain't it?

view replies

0 sats \ 13 replies \ @Undisciplined 25 Apr

Edit: I should have said, "the feds can claim you're in possession of property that was used in the commission of a crime"

18 sats \ 12 replies \ @Fabs 25 Apr

They can claim a foto of my asshole, which I'll gladly send them a copy of.

1 sat \ 11 replies \ @Undisciplined 25 Apr

The problem is that there's a reduced burden of proof for civil forfeiture, that's why the state loves it.

Obviously, you can keep your bitcoin secure, but you'll be charged with obstructing justice or aiding and abetting, or some other statist bs, for doing so.

17 sats \ 10 replies \ @Fabs 25 Apr

And then?

37 sats \ 8 replies \ @Undisciplined 25 Apr

It probably depends on whether they want to make an example of you. Irwin Schiff died in prison for not giving into the state's demands.

Maybe you just sit in jail for a while and lose your job, because you no-call no-showed.

Most people will probably cave, which is the point.

view replies

27 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xIlmari 25 Apr

And then you go to jail.

reply on another page

74 sats \ 7 replies \ @StillStackinAfterAllTheseYears 25 Apr

Entire police departments fund themselves with this bs. I hate it so much.

71 sats \ 0 replies \ @siggy47 OP 25 Apr

I was just watching some show a few weeks ago where a cop was showing off a new seized vehicle with a powerful engine which is now being used for pursuits.

10 sats \ 5 replies \ @0xIlmari 25 Apr

Hold up. What do you mean "fund"? Isn't the seizure indended to be temporary? To return to/compensate the victims (as eventually ruled by court)?

The proceeding allows the court to gather anyone with an interest in the property in the same case and resolve all the issues with the property at one time.

I don't see how the final outcome can ever be that the property becomes a permanent asset of the Police or the State.

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @StillStackinAfterAllTheseYears 25 Apr

Oh, you sweet summer child.

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @0xIlmari 25 Apr

While I admit I may be overly naive and assume good faith far too often, this does not answer my question.

10 sats \ 2 replies \ @StillStackinAfterAllTheseYears 25 Apr

Sorry, was being flip. But the term is "forfeiture" for a reason -- it's seized and forfeited to the state, but while there are often goals of "helping victims," (sometimes even met), this can also be done (in their opinion) by better funding the police force.

There are some instances of recovery, but not if the person's convicted (of pretty much anything).

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @0xIlmari 25 Apr

I do understand that "forfeiture" means it becomes property of the state. But the quote I put earlier implied to me that this is done just so that it can be "sorted out" in the court. I understand that there may be cases where a property is in danger of vanishing forever and this makes sense.

But as formulated, it is clear to me that the property in question should be returned to their rightful owners (or auctioned off for compensation). After all, the state has no business in owning random cars, guns or bricks of cocaine.

If, as you imply, this is vastly not the case, it means the system is greatly ineffective. Either cases take too long to get settled, or the police take improper custody, or citizens are unaware of (or can't afford) legal proceedings required for just recovery.

Either way, sad state of affairs.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @StillStackinAfterAllTheseYears 25 Apr

Either way, sad state of affairs.

Yup. Things are really, really broken.

74 sats \ 1 reply \ @Zenul_Abidin 25 Apr

Theoretically, bitcoin that has been mixed could be deemed proceeds of a crime after yesterday's indictment. I don't know whether the government would pursue this course of action.

I mean, they don't seriously mean that I could do a Payjoin with you, one of my inputs and one of your inputs, for 2 outputs one for each, and they call that mixing coins and something that they can seize, do they?

That would be really messed up if they go that far.

But basically all they're trying to do is destroy bitcoin privacy from the outside, by taking down all the projects.

Please name one good thing, just one, the US government has done for Bitcoin over its lifetime.

Nothing. I thought so. They almost look like they feel threatened by it.

50 sats \ 0 replies \ @siggy47 OP 25 Apr

I'm not ready to go that far yet. The civil forfeiture I see would be specific to coins mixed through Samourai, which they are alleging aided in money laundering, and they are alleging that the defendants knew the mixed coins were being used in criminal activity. Then, ANY mixed bitcoin through their wallet could conceivably be targeted, not just the bitcoin used in the alleged crime.