pull down to refresh

Rodriguez has been ordered to pay a $250,000 fine, while Hill faces a fine of $400,000. In total, $237 Million will be forfeited to the Government. Sentencing for Rodriguez is set for November 6th, while Hill will be sentenced on November 7th. Both are facing a maximum of 5 years in prison, with 3 years of supervised release. Rodriguez has been allowed to go home, but is under curfew. Hill, who currently resides in Portugal, may not leave the US, and his passport has been confiscated.
"A mixer like Samourai that does not take custody of the cryptocurrency by possessing the private keys would strongly suggest that Samourai is not acting as an MSB [Money Service Business]," FinCEN responded. In internal emails, prosecutors additionally described the unlicensed money transmission charges as "a difficult argument to make for us."
The Government argued in turn that FinCEN's views on Samourai Wallet were irrelevant, as the prosecution had dropped the federal licensing violation in the case. The dropping of federal licensing violations followed a memo issued by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche in April, which specified that cryptocurrency mixers should not be charged for licensing violations.
The decision to drop federal licensing violations was welcomed by the cryptocurrency community, but may have done the developers more harm than good, as much of the defense's case relied on unclear interpretations of FinCEN guidance. With FinCEN out of the picture, the argument that the law has been unclear as to money transmission guidance for cryptocurrency developers turned invalid.
But the developers continued to be charged under another part of money transmission law, which criminalizes the knowing transmission of illicit proceeds, to which the two now plead guilty. While the developer's guilty plea may not set case law precedent, it will surely affect legislative efforts to keep non-custodial software developers safe from being charged with money transmission violations overall.
142 sats \ 5 replies \ @siggy47 22h
Much better detail than the initial tweet storm. This is not as bad as I initially feared. According to the above, the plea was not to operating an unlicensed money transmitter. I feel sorry for the defendants, but devs should be okay for now. I think.
reply
41 sats \ 3 replies \ @k00b OP 22h
afaict it still sets a precedent vibe that non-custodial services need to know who their customers are
reply
143 sats \ 1 reply \ @siggy47 22h
It's nuanced. Your interpretation is worst case scenario, which could turn out to be accurate . Here, evidence was presented as to an actual solicitation of funds from Russian oligarchs. An unfortunate joke which was ultimately their downfall.
I'm not saying this is great, but it's better than first appeared.
reply
This was destined to be a Rorschach test.
Despite it being long ago telegraphed that the prosecution had less than nothing, so much so they even got rugged directly by FinCEN, and now having to save-face by settling for a conspiracy plea over stupid taunts... hipsters will find a way to make it about their virtues on custody.
reply
So basically... non-custodial privacy tools are OK. But if the developer has 'reason to believe' the tools are used by illicit actors then... ???
reply
36 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 22h
The Eye of Sauron, I mean the "justice system" is no joke.
reply
161 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 22h
The "justice" system...
reply
I wonder if the "knowing transmission of illegal proceeds" is basically due to the explicit shitposting to that effect on Twitter?
Had they just kept their fucking mouths shut, does this plea happen?
reply
54 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b OP 16h
I've heard that interpretation. As for precedent, I'm not sure how durable subtleties like that are legally.
reply
198 sats \ 3 replies \ @k00b OP 22h
while this sucks, I try to remind myself that bitcoin is better when the government fights it. and, the social scene is a lot more fun too.
reply
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @Scoresby 22h
Maybe it's like working out: when you contemplate lifting heavy weights or stepping out the door to go running, it feels bad, but once you get going and you get into the fight, things start looking up. Maybe we bitcoiners could use a little workout.
reply
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @siggy47 22h
Yep, and if things get really bad we can always join the fun and collect funds for an LN lobbying group to buy ourselves some senators.
reply
Indeed
reply
"Knowing" is illegal? What kind of shithole country is this
reply
77 sats \ 0 replies \ @BeeRye 22h
the future of any privacy tools for btc seems to only be safely developed anon from here on out.
reply
13 sats \ 0 replies \ @nolem 19h
Is this the digital version of William Wallace being captured by the authorities and taking their punishment while screaming freedom.
Am I looking at this in the wrong way
Have these guys set a precedent for the other devs willing to write code like this
Will they get sentences and privacy and freedoms are further eroded?
They are brave and hardy souls, the only advice I would give any would be devs in this field, kill your ego, publish anonymously, learn from Satoshi
reply
"The empire of law" Guilty of a victimless crime
reply
I think the government considers itself a victim here. Sanctions were circumvented and/or taxes evaded.
reply
That's why there's no victim.
I hope this leads to more solutions for private evasion that aren't that nonsense about petitions like saveourwallet. I don't use a mixer myself, especially since I'd never trade it for Fiat.
reply
Pleading If you are asked to “make a plea”, the court is trying to strip you of your rights. By being given only two choices, either guilty or not guilty, you will have inadvertently “accepted” the claim whichever choice you make.
Note: The word plea is short for plead, meaning to make an “emotional appeal”, such as begging.
However, as a private natural person or “living breathing man or woman” you have a third option, which is to question the validity of the claim made against you. In other words, if a claim or charge has been made against you, you request they prove it.
If a plea is made without your authority, you must question the source of this pleading, as it is not yours.
No one within that courtroom can make a plea for you without your consent; this includes the judge or magistrate. If anyone should attempt this, ask them the following: “Have I authorized you to speak for me?” If they say “no”, then request they retract their statement. If they say “yes” then the burden of proof is on them, so now ask them to prove it.
They should rebut the authority not playing by their rules...
reply
One lesson from all this: a privacy dev should first and foremost ensure his own privacy
reply