[eyeareque]

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.

[mason240]

>That doesn't seem right

It's not, and there has actually been a low-level national (US) dialog on the subject over the last month.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/11/10/363102433/pol...

[chiph]

> 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.

[ewang1]

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

[waterlesscloud]

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

[SCHiM]

More people have noticed this, there has also been an item in John Olivers talkshow about it. Very funny, but also very sad.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/06/john-oliver-civil-f...

Also this, an article mentioned in the show:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/st...

[valarauca1]

Civil forfeiture is really screwed up [1].

>So he basically loses them before he even can prove that they are his or not?

Yes goods are guilty until proven innocent in court.

>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 kinda is. Watch the link.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks

[drcube]

> 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.

Nevertheless, that's how it works in the land of the free.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/11/10/363102433/pol...

[sneak]

> a big loophole for the government to just go and steal whatever they want from you, before you've been proven guilty

That's exactly what it is. It's truly terrible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks

[anigbrowl]

Most legal activity (though not necessarily all) will involve paperwork and receipts, not least for the purposes of documenting your taxable income.

Civil forfeiture is often (though not always) used to clear up the legal status of assets found abandoned during a criminal investigation, eg if the DEA interrupts a drug bust and the buyers flee, leaving a few hundred thousand in cash behind. You could turn up to such a hearing and assert a legal claim to such assets along with an explanation of why they should not be forfeit, but if the assets are the proceeds of criminal activity then it's not worth it unless you have a truly outstanding cover story because you'd risk arrest or having the testimony at the hearing turn up in your criminal case.

IIRC in this case the feds got the bitcoin wallet information by seizing the Silk Road server, so they have a wholly reasonable presumption that the bitcoins are the assets of the (obviously illegal) drug brokerage business and probably a transaction log to back up this presumption.

[gnaritas]

> That doesn't seem right

Right has nothing to do with the law. Law is about what those with power can push through, it doesn't have anything to do with right and wrong.

[cecilpl]

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

[sillysaurus3]

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.

[jbigelow76]

unless you can convince the supreme court justices to turn against asset forfeiture, the practice will not change

Not true at all. In fact the solution is infuriatingly obvious. Require a warrant for all civil forfeitures. The proponents say it's for taking down assets of cartels (and probably alleged purveyors of black markets like in this case) so warrant is easy to get. This would prevent cops rolling average citizens on routine traffic stops so they can finance margarita machines with "pennies from heaven".

A reform like this should be an easy bi-partisan sell to congress. If they can't do it at the Federal level any pol that campaigned as a libertarian or champion of small government should be pushing for this in state legislatures.

[smokeyj]

Not to dismiss the noble courts of sillysaurus, but I'd like to see Ross convicted in the court of law. With due process and all that jazz.

[sillysaurus3]

Apparently we're not going to have a rational debate about this topic, which is unfortunate. For example, my comment had nothing to do with whether Ulbrict was convicted. It was strictly about asset forfeiture, which is a completely separate concept from having a trial. But of course a sarcastic one-liner is the most upvoted rebuttal.

Ulbrict is being given due process. He is also being given a fair trial. My observation is simply that there's no logical way he could have earned 50,000 BTC except by being an early miner or by running Silkroad, and apparently he wasn't an early miner.

Why is that important? Because if you're trying to change asset forfeiture, choosing which case to fight and who to defend is extraordinarily important. Let's say that the supreme court decides to reevaluate asset forfeiture, and let's say you've chosen Ulbrict as the case for them to reevaluate. Why give them more reasons to say "Our finding is that asset forfeiture is a legal and valid practice, and should not change"? By choosing Ulbrict, you aren't helping your cause.

A verdict like that will settle the debate of asset forfeiture for decades to come, so why risk such a crucial outcome so whimsically?

[gambiting]

Because acting on observations such as yours is directly against the spirit of due process and lawful justice. Even if it's "obvious" he could not have obtained those bitcoins legally, that does not change the fact that the law enforcement should not touch it until the verdict.

I don't know how to make it any clearer, either you understand that having a lawful society requires following the law to the letter even if something is painfully obvious, or you don't.

[yarou]

It seems like he's already been convicted in the court of public opinion.

[rmxt]

What a terribly defeatist attitude. Of course it's easiest on the conscience to defend the morally upstanding members of society, but legal practice is (or should be) continuously reevaluated and updated to fit with current societal norms, without respect to savoriness of those whom would benefit in the current situation in question. Asset forfeiture has real and valid uses, and DPR's case may or may not be one of them. But to completely dismiss the discussion of the overreaches of the use of asset forfeiture throughout the US because DPR's case is "easy" seems like a cop out.

Your rationalization appears to boil down to "the status quo is the status quo, so we shouldn't bother trying to change it."

[300bps]

There is zero chance that Ross William Ulbricht obtained those coins legally.

Every single article that comes up about DPR or Silk Road, you post multiple comments prejudging literally every facet of the case. The quote above from you is a perfect example. Suppose for a minute that in addition to running the Silk Road, DPR also had a massive mining operation with multiple ASIC processors. Makes sense, right? His whole business was based on BTC - why in the world wouldn't he participate as a miner?

That is just one way that some or possibly all of the 50,000 coins at issue could have been obtained by DPR legally. Ya know, I hope you never get to find out what it's like to be accused of something because then you'll get to see what it feels like when people like you prejudge your guilt.

[sillysaurus3]

You have me confused with someone else. This is the first time I've mentioned Ulbrict or DPR in any comment: http://hn.algolia.com/#!/comment/forever/prefix/0/author%3As...

It's interesting how unapologetically ravenous people will be.

Also, if DPR was an early miner, then surely he would have said that by now.

[RamseyMcGrath]

While we're being honest, I don't think there were ever charges filed against Ross for hiring anyone to kill anyone else

[nemo]

There have been charges filed and a pending trial in Maryland that includes these charges, while the current case is a separate trial in NY.

http://www.popehat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/UlbrichtMa...

http://www.popehat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/UlbrichtCr...

[prawn]

Not much twisting is required when you state "There is zero chance that Ross William Ulbricht obtained those coins legally."

You could make your case without statements like that.

[foobarqux]

It would be comparable to saying that he should get a fair trial, even if everyone "knows" he's guilty.

[sillysaurus3]

Not really. Asset forfeiture has nothing to do with a fair trial. Those are two separate concepts under the US legal system.

Also, he is getting a fair trial.

[lotsofmangos]

Asset forfeiture against property is part of civil law and as such is still subject to the concept of a fair trial, even if in practice it often is not. The bar for conviction is lower but the process is still supposed to be considering what is fair. Just because it is civil law does not exempt it from that basic legal principle.

[MichaelGG]

It's a lot less fair when your assets are seized (in general, not just the SR case). In fact, wasn't that part of the whole reason people accept seizure laws?

[murbard2]

Allegedly. Just because the DA says so doesn't mean it's true.