Hacker News Reader

Comment by bko | Hacker News Reader

From reading the article, the case appears nothing more than an exchange of Bitcoin for cash. The buyer dropped a hint about using it for illegal purposes, but I don't see how that's any concern of the seller.

I'm reminded of a comedian saying "Drugs are illegal but ATM machines are open 24 hours a day".

I'm just surprised the effort that agents go through to prosecute seemingly marginal activities. Unless the authorities knew this guy was involved in something more nefarious, I imagine there would be more pressing cases for them to pursue.

View on HN

>The buyer dropped a hint about using it for illegal purposes, but I don't see how that's any concern of the seller.

Within limits. If you sell Bitcoin to someone who tells you they're going to fund a hit on someone or blow up a building, I think it is a concern, both morally and legally.

But does the bitcoin have anything to do with it? What if you buy their car (sell them dollars)?

Perhaps, but Bitcoin is fungible so I don't see how you're being an accomplice just by knowing the person performs illicit activities with Bitcoin.

Would a needle exchange program also qualify as providing support for an illegal activity?

The bitcoin issue seems ancillary. You could just as easily have investigators tell their hairdresser they plan to undertake a fraud with their slick new look.

I think that would be a different crime though. Something like accessory to a homicide rather than money laundering.

>The buyer dropped a hint about using it for illegal purposes, but I don't see how that's any concern of the seller.

My old roommate and I used to use the Memo line on checks to imply that the money exchanged was for "sexual favors" or "drugs" or "illegal weapons" (yes, I'm aware that lots of people do this and we weren't very clever), when it was really one person paying their share of utilities to the other. As far as I know, BofA and PNC never reported us to the feds.

If they had reported you to the feds through the BSA e-filer system, you would never know. It is a federal violation to inform the party on which you have made a report. Just because you haven't received knock on the door does not mean you haven't been reported.

> The buyer dropped a hint about using it for illegal purposes, but I don't see how that's any concern of the seller

The case turned on a Florida law which defines includes in the definition of money laundering "money services businesses" that knowingly facilitate illegal activity [1].

[1] https://www.scribd.com/mobile/document/319270874/Order-Grant...

But doesn't money-laundering concern illegally obtained money? From the article, it claims that Espinoza would use Bitcoins for an illicit purpose. The money he was using was not knowingly obtained through illicit purposes.

>For that $30,000, Espinoza had agreed to sell a slew of bitcoins, the almost unregulated virtual currency, which Arias’s character said he would exchange for stolen Russian credit-card numbers.

"Money laundering" in a court means whatever the law says it means. Try re-reading the case, replacing "money laundering" with "money services crime under some Florida law".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com