[whyenot]

Everyone seems to be going off on a tangent about civil forfeiture. From the order: http://www.usmarshals.gov/assets/2014/dpr-bitcoins/order.pdf

WHEREAS, the Government and Ulbricht agree that, due to the volatile market for bitcoins, the Computer Hardware Bitcoins risk losing value during the pendency of the forfeiture proceedings;

WHEREAS, the Government and Ulbricht agree that the Computer Hardware Bitcoins are to be liquidated or sold by the Government before the conclusion of the forfeiture proceedings, with the net proceeds of the sale to be held as substitute res pending further order of this Court;

[stronglikedan]

So basically, put the current value of the coins in escrow, instead of the coins themselves, in case they drop in value dramatically over time. Makes sense to me.

[duskwuff]

Tangent: Does anyone know if it's standard practice for these sorts of arrangements to be made if other goods become part of forfeiture proceedings? (For instance, shares of a volatile mutual fund. Or, to take it out of the financial realm entirely, a truckload of perishable vegetables.)

[jnaglick]

I would guess that there has never been a case of a criminal investing their ill-gotten gains into "a truckload of perishable vegetables."

[GabrielF00]

While not really an analogue, there is the delightfully-named United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Approximately...

[rsynnott]

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/garlic-man-begle...

Massive tax fraud case involving Secret Garlic; it happens :)

[einrealist]

If the prosecution loses the case, it can be held liable in a civil case to losses the defendant made. So this is just an agreement between both sides to lower that risk and which does change nothing related to the case (so the judge will agree too). I guess, if there are no objections (even from a third party), this makes totally sense for anything else, too.

[mod]

@kordless:

It says they agree. Doesn't sound forced.

[scotty79]

Maybe it's one of those things that should not be allowed even if people agree to it.

[tedunangst]

What is? Selling bitcoins should not be allowed?

[scotty79]

government selling your stuff even if you signed paper saying that you agree to it

every agreement you signed with government should be implicitly treated as coerced

[Alupis]

they could also possibly go up in value.

does the government do the same with securities/stock owned too?

[tedunangst]

The Marshals Service manages various types of assets, including real estate, vehicles, commercial businesses, cash, financial instruments, jewelry, art, antiques, collectibles, vessels and aircraft.

The agency uses practices from private industry to ensure that assets are managed and sold in an efficient and cost-effective manner.

http://www.usmarshals.gov/assets/

[kordless]

A forced sale of an asset is NOT the same as putting it into escrow.

[EpicEng]

What text on that excerpt leads you to believe this was forced?

[sneak]

The "US Marshalls" part.

[nemo]

You missed the "Government and Ulbricht agree" part.

[CamperBob2]

Sounds like 3 wolves and a sheep agreeing on lunch plans.

[EpicEng]

So, in other words, only your own biases and preconceived notions.

Edit: I'd be curious to hear the side of you down voters. Do you have a legitimate gripe with the accuracy of what i said, or do you just blindly believe that everything the government does is evil?

[virtue3]

So, in other words, only _your_ _own_ biases and preconceived notions. Edit: I'd be curious to hear the side of you down voters. Do you have a legitimate gripe with the accuracy of what i said, or do you just blindly believe that everything the government does is _for_the_greater_good_?

Your argument is just shallow and not very constructive and having it reversed should make that somewhat apparent.

Personally, the general consensus around these parts is that DPR was brought down with illegal methods by the FBI and then having the actual disclosure being horse shit (aka parallel construction). So yes, blindly trusting that the government is doing anything in good faith around this case is going to be pretty rare.

[paulsutter]

The IRS will go after him for capital gains tax after the sale. The document makes no mention of a provision for him to pay his taxes due from the proceeds of the sale.

[leogiertz]

Wouldn't that be good though? Then he's free to buy property and other things with his "laundered" money if he's cleared from any wrongdoing.

It's not that easy to convert a large amount of bitcoins into money that you can use effectively.

[bengali3]

IANACPA I believe that's a nice advantage of bitcoin? I would think individuals could fly to the caymans to cash out and avoid tax?