[reviseddamage]

>Let's say person X has lots of bitcoins (potentially mined from the early days, when it was very easy to obtain). They go and sell it for $30,000, in cash. Let's assume X has the intention to declare the gains in their upcoming tax returns.

it's not what's happening here. i haven't seen where that was implied either.

>it seems that in this case they were trying to entice the guy with stolen credit cards. As that didn't work, they tried switching to money laundering.

no, they didn't entice him stolen credit cards, they, undercover, purported the sale of bitcoins/cash to him for the purpose of laundering the proceeds of the crime ( stolen credit card). Therefore, if he engaged in that sale knowingly, he willingly engaged in the laundering of proceeds of crime, i.e: money laundering. What they were weak or unable to demonstrate substantially was that his transactions thus far before the sting, were largely derived in the operations of aiding and abetting the laundering of the proceeds of crime.

[guiambros]

I don't think you have read the case [1].

They did try to entice with him with bullshit stolen credit cards. If you read carefully the first two pages, nothing was technically illegal, other than the fishy part where the defendant said he would "think about it" when offered to be paid with stolen credit cards. Had he said "No way Jose", it would have been a perfectly clean transaction, that could have happened to anyone on HN.

Still, he allegedly didn't accept the credit cards, and the detective tried to proceed with counterfeit money. In the end the defendant was charged with money laundering simply because he was selling bitcoins, which is utterly absurd. The judge was spot on to throw the case out.

I have no sympathy for crooks using bitcoins to cover their illicit actions, but I have equally no sympathy for law enforcement burning taxpayer dollars to chase ghosts.

[1] http://www.miamiherald.com/latest-news/article91701087.ece/B...(.PDF)

[reviseddamage]

I did the read the case, your premise and understanding of what money laundering is, in this case incorrect. When something is illegal it does not have a binary state of technically illegal, and nontechnically illegal. It is or it isn't. Knowing and willingly, aiding and abetting laundering proceeds of crime is considered in the same case of money laundering, whether you stole the cards, or got money for stolen cards you sold, or you helped the guy who got money for the cards he sold, or you helped the guy who helped the guy that got money for the stolen cards he sold.

It's not easy to understand the vague and imprecise world of money laundering because the laws were written to be broad.

This is not the first time stings are carried out, this is also not the first time a prosecution fails at a case that by all indications of the allegation should have been easy to close.