Selective Prosecution Of Samourai Defendants \ stacker news ~bitcoin

pull down to refresh

Selective Prosecution Of Samourai Defendants

13.5k sats \ 29 comments \ @siggy47 27 Apr bitcoin

Before I begin, keep in mind that, like every US citizen, these defendants are presumed innocent. Furthermore, the government has not disclosed any evidence that they did anything to break the law. For purposes of this post, I am assuming the government can prove money laundering as they claim

There is a well established principle of law in the U.S. known as selective prosecution.

In jurisprudence, selective prosecution is a procedural defense in which defendants argue that they should not be held criminally liable for breaking the law, as the criminal justice system discriminated against them by choosing to prosecute.

Regarding Samourai, criminal indictments were brought against these defendants. They can argue that:

persons of different age, race, religion, sex, gender, or political alignment, were engaged in the same illegal acts for which the defendant is being tried yet were not prosecuted, and that the defendant is being prosecuted specifically because of a bias as to that class.

The bias here is being a bitcoin developer, as opposed to being a banker. The latter seem immune to criminal prosecution.

There are many instances of banks being charged with crimes, yet no criminal charges are brought against individuals in those companies. Here's a nice example:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/jpmorgan-chase-co-agrees-pay-920-million-connection-schemes-defraud-precious-metals-and-us

Here's one specifically regarding money laundering:

https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/fed-fines-deutsche-bank-186-mln-insufficient-progress-addressing-anti-money-2023-07-19/

This one is a classic:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-goldman-sachs-investment-banker-sentenced-27b-bribery-and-money-laundering-scheme

Why wasn't Goldman Sachs' CEO indicted?

I guess if big banks do it, it's not criminal?

view all related items

172 sats \ 7 replies \ @Undisciplined 27 Apr

With all the lawfare going on all around us, do you think selective prosecution is going to carry much water?

I know it's a legal principle on paper, but ironically it seems like it's very selectively invoked. At least that's how it looks to a lay person from the outside.

202 sats \ 6 replies \ @siggy47 OP 27 Apr

I'm glad you asked me this, because I have been running around this morning and probably should flesh out my idea more. Since it's early, we still don't know what evidence, if any, the prosecution has. I posted about selective prosecution for a few reasons:

Good public relations. If the defense is out talking about it early, it can be painted as a classic David Goliath, Bankster/computer nerd battle. Most people have a sense of fairness. The little guy underdog perception can be valuable. This would be even more powerful if there is no specific evidence that these guys had anything to do with specific transactions.
As stillstackin pointed out, selective prosecution is rarely successful. That's because it's almost 100 percent of the time used where there is evidence against the defendant of a crime. Jurors tend to think of it as when you do something wrong as a kid and you use the excuse that "my friends did it too." Nobody buys that excuse. Here, actual bank directors knew of specific instances of money laundering, and yet were only fined. Sometimes the bank has criminal charges brought against the entity, but no officers or directors. If a lawyer can argue this at trial, and there is no actual evidence against the defendants, it could be powerful. It has been many years since I tried a case in the Southern District, so I'm not sure what the exact rules are about bringing this defense.

54 sats \ 5 replies \ @Undisciplined 27 Apr

I'm thinking about how the Liberty Coin guys were treated. I know the cases aren't even remotely similar on a technical level, but they might be from a PR perspective.

Will it be David vs Goliath or the state protecting us from subversive anarchist terrorists?

81 sats \ 4 replies \ @siggy47 OP 27 Apr

That's where the ETFs might actually do some good. Bitcoin is acceptable now.

129 sats \ 3 replies \ @Undisciplined 27 Apr

I think it might actually hurt in this case.

When there's an official regulated financial instrument that provides access to bitcoin, these Samurai guys look like they're specifically trying to give people a way to avoid the law.

This is about bitcoin in the same way the Liberty Coin case was about gold, which also had approved financial instruments.

61 sats \ 2 replies \ @siggy47 OP 27 Apr

Possibly. In my experience these things are always case specific and defendant specific. I don't know much about the Liberty Coin guys, or what they were accused if doing. I also don't know much about these Samourai guys.

54 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 27 Apr

From a surface level they were both selling their product on it's subversive features (saying the quiet part out loud, as it were).

Of course you're right that the cases will be different in their specifics and I hope it goes better this time. My recollection is that Liberty Coin was shut down under domestic terrorism charges.

71 sats \ 0 replies \ @siggy47 OP 27 Apr

If, and I hope this never happens, there is ever brought a similar case involving a lightning product, the use case is much more palatable, ie: lower fees, immediate settlement.

reply on another page

30 sats \ 3 replies \ @DarthCoin 27 Apr

every US citizen, these defendants are presumed innocent.

Wrong. All "citizens" are already "sentenced". Are just trustees, once they step in the court room they lost. The whole theater of "justice system", courts etc is just an act.

Seems that all the pills from @Lux were in vain posted every fucking day, over and over.

Nobody seems to care, nobody is paying attention to these aspects.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @Satosora 27 Apr

And only the lawyers make money, no matter if they win or lose. Only you are being fucked.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @_stacktoshi 27 Apr freebie

Yeah, but the more publicity this gets, the more clarity people get in their heads on where they stand. It's a test for "free societies" on how much they value free speech and privacy, aka how liberal they are. It's worth fighting.

59 sats \ 2 replies \ @Satosora 27 Apr

Usually the corporation gets indicted, and the ceo gets cut...or lately they just get a golden parachute because thats how the company wanted him to act. They just need a fall guy.

15 sats \ 1 reply \ @siggy47 OP 27 Apr

Exactly. That's what happened with the Malaysia guy.

54 sats \ 0 replies \ @Satosora 27 Apr

Sometimes it is a group of people. Members on the board . But they get compensated, they never go down by themselves.

155 sats \ 4 replies \ @Cje95 27 Apr

During the financial crisis everyone should have done what Iceland did... Let the banks fail and lock up those leaders who screwed over society and caused the mess... Iceland was able to bounce back well and without the government having to spend the insane amount other countries did.

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @Satosora 28 Apr

They did that? I never heard about it. That actually sounds like the responsible thing to do.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Cje95 28 Apr

Yep! It was pretty wild at the time but yeah looking back it seems like everyone screwed up and they were the only ones to get it right

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Satosora 28 Apr

Maybe if greece had followed suit, the euro wouldnt be struggling? Maybe it worked because iceland is a small island? Hhhmm...have to contemplate this further.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Cje95 28 Apr

Per capita GDP ranks 8th (nominal) and 14th (PPP) Its trading as well is pretty balanced with it barely importing more than it exports

54 sats \ 0 replies \ @Satosora 27 Apr

Lately it has been guilty until proven innocent. Get with the times man. At least in the usa he has a fighting chance, in some other countries its even more corrupt.

54 sats \ 0 replies \ @riberet19 27 Apr

They play by their own rules, they surely have the law bought into a certain way, especially being so high in the pyramid, we do not play by those rules, and the bitcoin developers are their potential enemies, so this is what there is.

54 sats \ 0 replies \ @bellabaxter 27 Apr

Most people are priced out. Who can afford a dignified defense?

This is how you rule by threatening to sue

54 sats \ 0 replies \ @bellabaxter 27 Apr

We know we are walking on thin ice when our main defense is grounded in past stated possible use of our services by a worldwide heterogeneous bunch of random people.

54 sats \ 1 reply \ @StillStackinAfterAllTheseYears 27 Apr

I'm pretty sure "banker" is right behind "cop" in terms of ability to almost never get prosecuted.

Looking at the Wikipedia link, it does sound like most selective prosecution defenses fail, alas.

51 sats \ 0 replies \ @siggy47 OP 27 Apr

You're right. They do. To get more depressed, check how many criminal defendants get acquitted in the Southern District. Still, it will perhaps shed light on the obvious unfairness.

20 sats \ 0 replies \ @siggy47 OP 27 Apr

I should have also included a link to this article, which brings up a bunch of more high profile cases: https://sanctionscanner.com/blog/the-five-biggest-money-laundering-scandals-317

100 sats \ 0 replies \ @javier 27 Apr

It's always the same thing. I'm really tired of explaining the same over and over and over every day, so I will just copy & past a today's reponse which applies here exactly the same:

Guys it is more simple than that: they just can't prove they have any jurisdiction on you or anybody private, at most they have jurisdiction over their employees, but they pay to them over your illegally collected taxes, so they are in full fraud. Change the chip in your brain: you are not their slaves. They just pretend they are your masters. But they are not. Get out of the mind-jail.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @om 27 Apr

I don't get your point.

yet no criminal charges are brought against individuals in those companies.

It isn't a company that's persecuted in this case because Samourai has no company IIUC. Logical enough.

Why wasn't Goldman Sachs' CEO indicted?

This is a good question but it's not about selective prosecution. Goldman Sachs was prosecuted too, meaning the case was brought to the court just like this case. Now whether the court itself is biased is a completely different question.