Hacker News Reader

Comment by ashdksnndck | Hacker News Reader

Happy to hear about police doing something to help crime victims. Around here you are lucky if they show up at all.

If the bitcoin ATMs have to bear the cost of restitution for scams, they’ll raise fees to cover it and/or implement measures to make their product less useful for scammers. If that makes their business nonviable, so be it.

View on HN

I believe the police are only doing this because they are going to keep most of the cash themselves after doing zero effort in finding out who's cash they "saved". And I think believing anything else without proof is exceedingly naive of how US cops and courts operate.

Exactly, it'll be another civil asset forfeiture scam where police just keep the money.

To be clear: Bitcoin ATMs know damn well what they're doing. These devices at best performatively disguised money laundering tools. They exist by and for fraud. Virtually no legitimate transactions happen at them.

Whether that constitutes proof beyond a reasonable doubt is arguable, so I wouldn't be surprised if they claw this cash back. But the core truth isn't really in question.

What do you put in a bitcoin atm? Cash right? So you could say the only reason to have cash around is if you're committing crimes. Otherwise you can just use you bank card.

That's not at all what parent comment said or implied. When A is only used for X and B is needed for A, then it does not follow that B is only used for X.

Sounds like cops should just arrest anyone who uses one then?

The users in the linked article were victims, not criminals. Cops should absolutely surveil these things though, and IMHO seizing the cash in there, via warrant, as part of the process of investigating a crime is a not unreasonable step.

I would be more than happy to see gift cards disappear.

Limited strings-attached IOU that’s worse in every way than the cash paid for them.

Um, unless you have some really strong evidence to the contrary, I'm going to continue believing that the biggest use of Bitcoin ATMs is to buy cryptocurrency that's then used to buy drugs. That may not be legitimate, but it is neither money laundering nor fraud. Words have meanings.

I don't think that's correct at all. AML statutes are extremely broadly constructed precisely to avoid this kind of "akshually" defense. Exchanging currency for the purpose of evading detection of an illegal transaction is 100% laundering under the standard interpretation of those laws.

Statutes often redefine words in common use. Those definitions aren't interesting when you're outside of a courtroom.

Your point is that I'm right as a matter of criminal law but that you're not wrong because you have another definition for "money laundering" in your head? Well, OK. Agree to disagree, I guess.

The only context where the definition can irrevocably alter the trajectory of your life is in that courtroom. I'd argue that is the more important and interesting one that counts.

What about gift card shops?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com