All that education and they still didn’t have the common sense to maybe not go to North Korea
He cooperated when questioned after returning from North Korea, only to have his own words used against him when he was charged.
He didn't take sanctions violations seriously enough and when he asked the State Dept for permission beforehand to go, they said no, and he went anyway.
While that qualifier is unnecessary (we know who Robert H. Jackson is), and while being a Supreme Court Justice is certainly impressive, Jackson is even more impressive for applying his ideologies and simultaneously writing about them and publishing while serving as Attorney General.
The quote you pull is a good one, but I prefer what I think is a finger wag to all prosecutors, who actually hold the most powerful positions in our government (arguably more powerful than Judges, Senators or Presidents):
Nothing better can come out of this meeting of law enforcement officers than a rededication to the spirit of fair play and decency that should animate the federal prosecutor. Your positions are of such independence and importance that while you are being diligent, strict, and vigorous in law enforcement you can also afford to be just. Although the government technically loses its case, it has really won if justice has been done.
Often enough, a federal prosecutor is seduced by their own ambition for the sake of their record (perversely seen as more important than justice), that their case should be won at all cost, and the process seems to be to unfairly pile on charges to exaggerate the actual alleged crime and induce outrage, and economically disenfranchise the suspect or defendant (often employing civil forfeiture for this effect) so that the defendant can not afford to mount a viable defense, in order to induce a plea deal, which often leads to innocent people accruing criminal records, serving time and subsequently being less able to earn a decent living paying less taxes, and not living as long as they might.
I may have gone around the OT bend, but it seems like the way prosecutors operate in general in serving their own ambitions, against Jackson's recommendations, hurts America's bottom line by synthetically reducing the amount of taxes that can be collected and diminishes or disables that individual's ability to contribute to society. The story of Aaron Swartz comes to mind as a perfect example of this.
Vast majority of US population would be astounded if they learned even a fraction of screening that goes on behind the curtain; that does not even include existence of SARs or differences between jurisdictions.
And they typically don't know, because, usually, those issues touch either sophisticated players with money to spend on defense, or actual designees, who know full well what they are doing. Average US national typically won't even know there is an issue unless in ~80% of cases.
There is an argument to be made that with crypto that line of defense may be hard to swallow. After all, it is designed to avoid government oversight.. but I personally am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Still, the government wants the population to take sanctions seriously. Prosecution is one way to make people take notice.
Right now there are sanctions against Russia, and some US companies are giving Bitcoin to Russians to help to escape the country, but the US government doesn’t make that illegal, because they are not helping Putin, but the refugees who got stuck in a horrible situation.
Of course US can make sending Bitcoin to Russian people illegal at any time, and then any person will know that they are risking going to prison if they still want to help those people.
Isn't it impossible? Bitcoins are being sent to random 256bits, not to people. Unless some Russian person reveals some adress and promises that he really owns the key, this kind of transaction may be hard to proove.
Just an example even if a person doesn't use an address, if a Russian person checks out a HD multisig public key from which other keys may be derived, the sender can get suspicious.
But in my limited understanding, this seems much more malicious and I’m less inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.