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.
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.)
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.
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.
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?
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.
To recap: Kordless suggested that the sale was forced. EpicEng asked what indicated that it was forced. Sneak replied that "the 'US Marshalls' part" indicated that it was forced. EpicEng correctly noted that this does not strongly indicate that it was forced, and that to assume so based on the fact that the US Marshalls are involved is evidence of bias.
To further recap: EpicEng did not suggest that "everything the government does is for the greater good," nor did EpicEng even say that the sale was not forced — only that we don't have a compelling reason to believe it was.
Since EpicEng is merely asking for rational thought, I don't see how this can possibly be evidence of EpicEng's biases and preconceived notions.
As a side note, your phrasing here suggests that the only alternatives in your mind are "blindly trust the government" and "blindly accuse everyone involved with the government of any wrongdoing possible," which are both irrational positions. We can consider whether the government is doing something wrong without jumping to conclusions as the people EpicEng was replying to seemed to do.
It's nice to know that "the general consensus" is an arbiter of logic and reason now and anyone who does not conform to this opinion is on the other side of a false dichotomy who must be shown the error of their ways.