|
|
|
|
|
|
by DocTomoe
1357 days ago
|
|
|
That's the point: In my example, an actual seizure of the account has not happened. Just because a state actor declares an item seized does not make it so - seizure implies having taken possession of the item at question (see, e.g. [1]). This clearly has not happened in the crypto case. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/seizure |
|
|