Some choice quotes that I found to be interesting (and/or alarming):
… it appears that the Defendant was selected for the investigation based on his username [Michelhack], his 24-hour availability, and his desire to meet in public places.
The fact that all it took was a username with the word “hack” and having 24 hour hour availability to be selected as a target to be “set up” by an under cover police is rather startling!
Detective Arias asked the Defendant if the Defendant would be willing to accept stolen credit cards numbers as a trade for Bitcoin in their next transaction and the Defendant allegedly replied that “he would think about it.”
Not sure what to make of this… Perhaps the defendant should have taken that as a hint that something fishy was going on? Or be more explicit about “No, I do not accept stolen credits cards”?
Detective Arias also produced a “flash roll” of hundred dollar bills purportedly containing the thirty thousand dollar payment. The money was in fact undercover funds that were counterfeit. The Defendant inspected the currency and immediately became concerned that the money was counterfeit.
Good thinking on the defendant’s behalf… But wait, there’s more:
… the Defendant wanted to bring portions of the money to the bank “a little at a time” in order to verify its authenticity. The Defendant never took possession of the counterfeit money and was subsequently arrested.
That sounds absolutely appalling :(…
I think the ruling is erroneous (though IANAL!). Bitcoin is categorized as a commodity by the Commodities and Futures Trading Commission, and should allow it to be categorized similarly as Gold for “money laundering” law purposes.
However, I also believe the Detectives acted in bad faith to entrap an otherwise innocent individual with no other evidence other than implanting (false) statements of using the Bitcoins to buy stolen credit cards and an off-hand remark to offer stolen credit cards as payment (an offer that was not even accepted by the Defendant!).
In this case… two wrongs made a right?
As a further thought experiment: would the following have raised just as much alarm (and would any detective even attempt such a ploy)?
1) Individual A is a jewelry dealer.
2) The Detective comes in contact with said Individual A, and wants to buy some expensive gold chains.
3) The Detective makes an off hand remark of using the gold chains to buy “stolen credit cards”, and offers to pay via said stolen credit cards.
4) Had the Individual A rebuffed the stolen credit card offer, but proceeded with the sale for cash, would the Individual A be just as culpable/liable to be arrested?
Note: I haven’t read the ruling and am not familiar with the case.
Perhaps the judge ruled that Bitcoin wasn’t money because they were hip to the fact that the Detective was being a jerk and doing shady shit (proper legalese there, I know) and this ruling was the most sure-fire way to get the defendant off? I can see it being a lot harder for the Detective to argue that Bitcoin is money vs arguing that the defendant is truly guilty if the judge were to make the same points you did about the defendant not even agreeing to accept stolen CCs or the wad of cash.
Link to the 8-page opinion written by Judge Teresa Pooler: http://www.miamiherald.com/latest-news/article91701087.ece/BINARY/Read%20the%20ruling%20(.PDF)
Some choice quotes that I found to be interesting (and/or alarming):
The fact that all it took was a username with the word “hack” and having 24 hour hour availability to be selected as a target to be “set up” by an under cover police is rather startling!
Not sure what to make of this… Perhaps the defendant should have taken that as a hint that something fishy was going on? Or be more explicit about “No, I do not accept stolen credits cards”?
Good thinking on the defendant’s behalf… But wait, there’s more:
That sounds absolutely appalling :(…
I think the ruling is erroneous (though IANAL!). Bitcoin is categorized as a commodity by the Commodities and Futures Trading Commission, and should allow it to be categorized similarly as Gold for “money laundering” law purposes.
However, I also believe the Detectives acted in bad faith to entrap an otherwise innocent individual with no other evidence other than implanting (false) statements of using the Bitcoins to buy stolen credit cards and an off-hand remark to offer stolen credit cards as payment (an offer that was not even accepted by the Defendant!).
In this case… two wrongs made a right?
As a further thought experiment: would the following have raised just as much alarm (and would any detective even attempt such a ploy)?
1) Individual A is a jewelry dealer.
2) The Detective comes in contact with said Individual A, and wants to buy some expensive gold chains.
3) The Detective makes an off hand remark of using the gold chains to buy “stolen credit cards”, and offers to pay via said stolen credit cards.
4) Had the Individual A rebuffed the stolen credit card offer, but proceeded with the sale for cash, would the Individual A be just as culpable/liable to be arrested?
Note: I haven’t read the ruling and am not familiar with the case.
Perhaps the judge ruled that Bitcoin wasn’t money because they were hip to the fact that the Detective was being a jerk and doing shady shit (proper legalese there, I know) and this ruling was the most sure-fire way to get the defendant off? I can see it being a lot harder for the Detective to argue that Bitcoin is money vs arguing that the defendant is truly guilty if the judge were to make the same points you did about the defendant not even agreeing to accept stolen CCs or the wad of cash.