> How do you surrender assets you don't have control over?
If you’ve arranged to share control of the Bitcoin wallet with someone else so they can move coins out of it in order to evade a court order, what’s happened is you’ve now conspired with someone else to evade a court order. Say hello to the RICO act, or something like it. Maybe you’ll be spending some time in prison after your assets are seized, and maybe your friend will be too. It’s kind of hard for your friend to claim that they were innocent.
There are a lot of tough laws against this stuff which are designed to work against the mob and organized crime. You’re not really inventing something new, you’re just doing old-fashioned mafia stuff, but using computers to do it. The court doesn’t care that you used computers to do it.
I am a cyber criminal. One day I get arrested and the court demands I decrypt my wallets. I refuse and get hit with contempt.
My wife flees to Russia and moves the coin to another wallet, without my knowledge. Or maybe it was an agreed plan. Who can prove otherwise.
Eventually I give up and decrypt the wallets.
What are your legal grounds for prosecuting me for this further action? What can you prove? How are you going to prove that I conspired, and that this wasn't my wife going rogue?
You'd be fairly well boned on obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice.
Any brilliant plan you think up in the course of a few seconds will be likely to run into the fact that the common law has a thousand years of collective experience.
You just said it would be obstruction of justice, yet a transaction occurring from a known wallet while a suspect is in custody is not enough to prove that. You'd have to prove the conspiracy. You're hand-waving the details away in an attempt to dismiss the argument.
What does the prosecutor do when the funds get moved and the suspect is under lock and key? Because of the decentralized nature of crypto, you cannot even show who moved the funds. All you know is that they were moved.
So if you're a prosecutor, what are you going to show the judge to persuade them that an obstruction of justice has occurred?
Saying "it's math, yerhonner" is itself handwaving. My point is that a court doesn't need to fixate on the crpytographic impossibilities. They can rely on literally any other evidence. They can gladly drag your friends into court to answer questions. Any of your other assets can be seized or frozen.
Folks who think cryptocurrencies are magic cheat codes are just not aware of the flexibility and enormous powers that a court has to overwhelm mechanistic attempts to defeat their decisions.
The defendant doesn't need to say anything, that's the point. The prosecution has to do all the leg work. And they may literally have no other evidence.
- Can the prosecution show where and how Mr. X moved the funds while he was in jail?
- Can they show who he communicated with or ordered to abscond these funds?
- Can they identify who controls the funds now?
- Can they identify anyone else who may have had control of these funds while in their previous wallet?
- Can the prosecution rule with 100% certainty that this was not a hack or theft by some other party, including police?
The answer to those is probably no. Is that enough to convince a judge/jury of reasonable doubt? I'm not a lawyer.
That order is very likely part of a greater matter, and that will likely remain unchanged, IMHO.
Others, myself included, totally recognize the physics. That doesn't change the law much, just how it's enforced.
Should all that prove ineffective, as in justice is not served, we can all look forward to new and innovative law too.
In the end, we've got the basic human control issues in play.
The basic human remedies will also remain in play.
Prime example being it's quite possible to make life a real living hell for people, if nothing else. It's also possible to make that all being worth it very difficult to actualize.
You’re talking about a scenario where your wife is moving to Russia avoid US jurisdiction. You can already do that. You can move to Russia, put your money in a Russian bank, and voilà, it is difficult for the US government to sieze it.
I don’t understand what point you are trying to make, I guess. What I’m hearing is that you can commit the same crimes, but now you can commit these crimes with Bitcoin, and maybe the law will catch up with you, maybe it won’t. It doesn’t sound much like flexibility and control, it sounds like gambling that you are better at hiding assets in Bitcoin than other types of assets.
If you are living in the US and spending money to support your lifestyle you are very likely within the reach of the law, and the money you are spending has to come from somewhere and go to somewhere. If you are not spending your Bitcoin and benefiting from it, then what’s the point? And if you are spending the Bitcoin and benefiting from it, then law enforcement can investigate those transactions.
Taking someone's assets vs coercing them to hand over their assets, are not the same thing.
You can take my gold, my dollars, my factories, my real estate, all by force.
You can take my freedom, you can take my life, by force.
You cannot take my Bitcoin by force. You might be able to put me through enough pain for me to give it up. But this is not a guarantee.
We have been discussing this in the context of being a sneaky cyber criminal with a just law system. But imagine you live in a nation where the government (military junta) is "nationalizing" all wealth and assets. Then tell me the best way to protect your money.
> We have been discussing this in the context of being a sneaky cyber criminal with a just law system.
If you were assuming that the law was just then you’ve been having a different conversation. I’ve just been assuming that this is the US legal system, nothing more, nothing less. Do not assume that the US legal system is just.
The US law system is reasonably competent, has a global reach, and can out-wait you.
Resources are not unlimited. Time and attention can only be divided so many ways.
As we speak, billions of dollars of illegal drug cartel money sloshes along the international banking system, sometimes enabled by the banks themselves. The powers that be seem very ineffective at stopping them. I think you have too much confidence in the capabilities of these systems.
They aren't superficial. You aren't wrong in that assessment. But, you are ignoring how law works. Here's a little bit about that:
Criminal law is all about intent.
So, here's an example of the non superficial elements here:
Say, one gets the "gimme your coin" order, says no, goes to jail.
While in jail, the coins move, OK?
Person in jail cries, "Uncle!" and gives up the wallet.
Authorities find it empty.
Who had what intent?
If the intent is to circumvent the order? That's an additional crime period. It may involve others too, who may also be committing crimes. The intent will link it all back together somehow, and that's what the law will resolve. Crucially, the person supposed to give up coin won't end up with coin, because they are ordered to give it up.
If the intent was not to circumvent the order? Someone, somewhere did something with intent, and that intent will boil down to theft from law enforcement, who is entitled to that coin, due to the order. That person would now be a criminal, and on it goes. The person ordered to give up coin still won't end up with it, and someone else is now being hunted down for having stolen coins from law enforcement, who will do whatever it takes to end up with the coins so ordered to them.
Put in very simple terms, understanding intent and law can all look like this:
Say we find a dead person. Is that a crime?
If anyone else, other than the dead person, anywhere, intended that dead person end up dead, yes! It's murder. Could be for hire, vengeful, whatever.
Maybe someone was stupid. That's a different intent, and a different crime. Maybe it's manslaughter of some kind. Could be reckless, for example, or negligent.
If there was no intent associated with the dead person then there is no crime, and we've just, sadly, got a dead person.
Maybe the person stepped in front of a bus. That's suicide.
In all cases, there is a dead person.
Intent determines whether there are also criminals, what their crime is, and all that other stuff.
Intent alone does not prove anything, you need proof of act (actus reus to the mens rea).
To play along with your analogy; do you have proof that someone killed someone else? Even if you have a damning confession letter which proves intent. Do you have a murder weapon? Evidence that puts the person at the scene of the crime? Circumstantial evidence like phone location data?
Ironically intent is the far harder thing to prove, I have no idea why you chose to base your argument on intent.
How does the prosecution prove my intent to circumvent compliance orders? How do they prove that I moved the coins, or prove that I ordered the moving of the coins?
There will be more orders. Who had access to the wallet, etc... Wiretaps, observation, all of it is part of the game now.
In short, investigation will continue, as well all available means and methods applied to better understand who moved the coins and why they were moved.
That is likely to be an expensive, potentially freedom limiting, time.
Being unable to prove it NOW doesn't mean forever being unable to prove things.
Good luck with that game. It's very difficult, time consuming, dangerous, and expensive to play. Your opponents are willing to play hard indefinitely.
Best not benefit from the moved coins in the future.
Both implication and deduction are available legal means too. Remember that part.
You should look up coin joins (tumbling) as well as Monero protocols. It will blow your mind. Introducing this kind of complexity into tracing assets makes things very difficult.
The real world value entry and exit points are ever present.
Mix it all one wants. It remains extremely difficult to avoid others knowing value, otherwise unaccounted for, finding it's way back. That plus a shake down of everyone the person ever knew remains potent, relevant and effective.
I have followed the rough tech developments. None of what I wrote is impacted too much. Obtaining real world value of any significance is where all the weak points are, and where long established means and methods play well.
People are super leaky. Records everywhere, redundant in many cases too.
Forward your adoption time frames by 100 years. Maybe even less.
There are no longer "entry" and "exit" points because everyone uses it and accepts it. Crypto is a good as cash. Anything you can do with a suitcase full of illicit hundred dollar bills today, you can do with your phone tomorrow.
In a future where cryptocurrencies are the new normal, probably only crypto that allows governments insight and seizure will be legal. All others will be illegal, and moving in and out to legal currencies will be the exit and entry points.
It's probable and possible, obviously governments will want to control cryptoassets. But this point has been discussed before.
The trade of "illegal" assets goes on and will continue to go on to the end of time, whether that's marijuana or prostitution services. The spectrum of legality will vary in different parts of the world. Like many contrabands, there won't be enough resources to enforce prohibition of it, the population may not see the point of its illegality (as there is not an obvious social cost), and eventually the tides turn.
That seems fishy tho, you'll probably have to prove that, one of the core pruposes of judges is choosing who to believe, there is no such thing as a 100% fact.
Buddy there are plenty of people in jail right now based on extremely flimsy evidence such as simply being in the vicinity of a crime.
All your comments in the thread are about "proving it," when, at the end of the day, it's up to 12 people in a box, most of whom don't know the first thing about bitcoin. Refusal to decrypt, wife moving Russia, etc... The government is going to make an extremely convincing case, with plenty of witnesses and all the time and money and lawyers they need. Meanwhile you'll be communicating with your defense lawyers from behind bars. You might be right -- maybe they can't prove any ill-intent -- but that's not a gamble with the odds in your favor.
It very well may be up to a jury (or a judge alone). And they'll hear questions like:
- Can the prosecution show where and how Mr. X moved the funds while he was in jail?
- Can they show who he communicated with or ordered to abscond these funds?
- Can they identify who controls the funds now?
- Can they identify anyone else who may have had control of these funds while in their previous wallet?
The answer is basically no to any of those questions. This is simply because of the nature of crypto and mathematics; a set of seed words allows anyone to restore access on any machine, from anywhere on the planet.
Juries hear circumstantial cases all the time where they have no witness, or no actual murder weapon, or no fingerprints, no DNA -- and more often than not, convict anyway. Just acting shady is usually enough, and the moment you refused to decrypt the wallet, you made yourself look guilty to the majority of jurors.
I'm merely pointing out that the differences are not superficial.