6 ms·

I don't have a deep grasp of Civil Forfeiture but it seems like this is unusual considering DPR has not been convicted of anything yet. Is this part of a plea b

I don't have a deep grasp of Civil Forfeiture but it seems like this is unusual considering DPR has not been convicted of anything yet. Is this part of a plea bargin or something similar?

mmanfrin 12y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_...
emhart 12y ago
from the link, and their all caps treatment preserved: ON JANUARY 27, 2014, THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ENTERED A STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR INTERLOCUTORY SALE OF BITCOINS WHEREIN THE UNITED STATES AND ROSS WILLIAM ULBRICHT AGREED THAT THE UNITED STATES MAY SELL ANY PORTION OR ALL OF THE COMPUTER HARDWARE BITCOINS ON A DATE OR DATES IN A MANNER TO BE DETERMINED BY THE GOVERNMENT. So, it sounds like he clearly agreed to something, as he is mentioned by name here.
- rrggrr 12y ago
  The "Computer Hardware Bitcoins" term is notable and I wonder to which statute it refers. What actions were taken or crime alleged where it would be important to characterize Bitcoins in this way? I speculate that Ulbrict needs funds to pay attorneys fees. It may be he stipulated to a portion (or all) of the BTC as his in-exchange for unfreezing the asset and permitting its sale.
  - waterlesscloud 12y ago
    That term is parenthesized and quoted on the site, so it must refer to something in particular. (“COMPUTER HARDWARE BITCOINS”) EDIT- They're referred to that way in the stipulation agreement he made to allow them to be sold (pdf) http://www.usmarshals.gov/assets/2014/dpr-bitcoins/order.pdf http://www.usmarshals.gov/assets/2014/dpr-bitcoins/order.pdf
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > The "Computer Hardware Bitcoins" term is notable and I wonder to which statute it refers. It doesn't refer to a statute. It is a short form to refer to what is described in long form in the first paragraph of the notice as "THE BITCOINS CONTAINED IN WALLET FILES THAT RESIDED ON CERTAIN COMPUTER HARDWARE BELONGING TO ROSS WILLIAM ULBRICHT". (The same long description, and the explicit linkage of the same short form to that long description, is in the linked Stipulation and Order from the court allowing the sale.) The stipulation also refers to the reason -- Ulbricht and the Government agreed to the sale to convert the bitcoins into dollars to protect both parties from risk due to volatility; the bitcoins are not being forfeited at this time, the forfeiture action will continue with the proceeds of the sale as the subject property rather than the bitcoins themselves.
- waterlesscloud 12y ago
  It's amusing to see the url uses "dpr-bitcoins", DPR being the common community abbreviation for Dread Pirate Roberts. I mean, that's what they are, just funny to see the govt refer to him that way. http://www.usmarshals.gov/assets/2014/dpr-bitcoins/ http://www.usmarshals.gov/assets/2014/dpr-bitcoins/
- tedunangst 12y ago
  It is clearly in Ross's interests to permit the sale. He's not DPR, remember? So these aren't his bitcoins and he therefore doesn't care what happens to them.
  - waterlesscloud 12y ago
    In the agreement document he explicitly claims ownership, and agrees to the sale since the price may go down before they are returned to him.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    Actually, these bitcoins are ones that Ulbricht claims are his, not the (much larger) set of bitcoins that weren't on his personal hardware which were linked to DPR which he did not claim (and which were the subject of an earlier sale.)
    - tedunangst 12y ago
      Oh, my bad. Sorry. I thought this was selling off more of the earlier Silk Road stash, not the "personal collection". Should have read more carefully.
    - pbhjpbhj 12y ago
      How does he claim to have acquired them, or has he not made any statement on that yet?
      - mark-r 12y ago
        When anything you say may be used against you, would you make any such public statement before the matter comes up in court?
ncallaway 12y ago
Civil forfeiture is different from criminal forfeiture in that it does _not_ require a guilty verdict. Civil forfeiture is against the _property_, and it puts the burden of proof on the owner of the property to prove that it was obtained legally. Here's another explanation of it that's probably better than mine: https://www.contributoria.com/issue/2014-08/539b517ba588a79174000034 https://www.contributoria.com/issue/2014-08/539b517ba588a791...
- eyeareque 12y ago
  So what happens if he legally obtained these bitcoins, but cannot prove that he did so? So he basically loses them before he even can prove that they are his or not? That doesn't seem right, it would make sense that the coins are held in an escrow status until he was proven guilty.. It seems to be a big loophole for the government to just go and steal whatever they want from you, before you've been proven guilty.
  - SCHiM 12y ago
    More people have noticed this, there has also been an item in John Olivers talkshow about it. Very funny, but also very sad. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/06/john-oliver-civil-forfeiture_n_5938686.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/06/john-oliver-civil-f... Also this, an article mentioned in the show: http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/st...
  - mason240 12y ago
    >That doesn't seem right It's not, and there has actually been a low-level national (US) dialog on the subject over the last month. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/11/10/363102433/police-can-seize-and-sell-assets-even-when-the-owner-broke-no-law http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/11/10/363102433/pol...
  - valarauca1 12y ago
    Civil forfeiture is really screwed up [1]. >So he basically loses them before he even can prove that they are his or not? Yes goods are guilty until proven innocent in court. >It seems to be a big loophole for the government to just go and steal whatever they want from you, before you've been proven guilty. It kinda is. Watch the link. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks
tigerente 12y ago
Last Week Tonight with John Oliver has recently done a show summarizing the issue around Civil Forfeiture: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks
x1798DE 12y ago
Civil asset forfeiture cases in the US, insanely, have a reversed burden of proof and are in re actions against the assets to be seized. When assets are seized by law enforcement, you have to petition for them to be returned and prove that you came by them lawfully. You don't ever need to be convicted of or even charged with a crime in order to have your assets seized. I don't know anything about how long law enforcement has to wait before selling your assets.
- schoen 12y ago
  Should be in rem (against a thing) instead of in re (in a matter) in this case. The Latin preposition in can take the accusative case, in which case it means 'into, onto, against' or the ablative case, in which case it means 'in, inside of'.
ceejayoz 12y ago
Read this investigative series and become furious: http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/collection/stop-and-seize-2/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/collection/st...
giodamelio 12y ago
My understanding is this. The government found a bunch of bitcoins on a computer that may or may not have belonged to Ross Ulbricht, so they asked him "Are all these bitcoins yours?". Ross can't say that they are without admitting his guilt, so the government auctions them off.
- whyenot 12y ago
  Your understanding is wrong. From the order: WHEREAS, on or about December 12, 2013, Ulbricht filed a timely verified claim in this proceeding, asserting an ownership interest in the Computer Hardware Bitcoins
  - desdiv 12y ago
    To add to that, Ulbricht voluntarily agreed to this sale: WHEREAS, the Government and Ulbricht agree that, due to the volatile market for bitcoins, the Computer Hardware Bitcoins risk losing value during the pendency of the forfeiture proceedings; WHEREAS, the Government and Ulbricht agree that the Computer Hardware Bitcoins are to be liquidated or sold by the Government before the conclusion of the forfeiture proceedings, with the net proceeds of the sale to be held as substitute res pending further order of this Court;
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
whyenot 12y ago
Everyone seems to be going off on a tangent about civil forfeiture. From the order: http://www.usmarshals.gov/assets/2014/dpr-bitcoins/order.pdf http://www.usmarshals.gov/assets/2014/dpr-bitcoins/order.pdf WHEREAS, the Government and Ulbricht agree that, due to the volatile market for bitcoins, the Computer Hardware Bitcoins risk losing value during the pendency of the forfeiture proceedings; WHEREAS, the Government and Ulbricht agree that the Computer Hardware Bitcoins are to be liquidated or sold by the Government before the conclusion of the forfeiture proceedings, with the net proceeds of the sale to be held as substitute res pending further order of this Court;
- stronglikedan 12y ago
  So basically, put the current value of the coins in escrow, instead of the coins themselves, in case they drop in value dramatically over time. Makes sense to me.
  - kordless 12y ago
    A forced sale of an asset is NOT the same as putting it into escrow.
    - EpicEng 12y ago
      What text on that excerpt leads you to believe this was forced?
      - sneak 12y ago
        The "US Marshalls" part.
        pg_is_a_butt 12y ago
        considering there is no "US Marshalls" part, and the Government was only referenced as "the Government".... you're an idiot.
        12y ago
dragonwriter 12y ago
Its worth noting that while they have been seized, they have not yet been forfeited -- that action is ongoing. The sale was agreed to secure the value and protect the government and Ulbricht both from price volatility; the forfeiture action will continue against the sale proceeds.
downandout 12y ago
Civil forfeiture is one of the scariest areas of our legal system. The government essentially files a civil lawsuit against your property, and it then it's on you to get it back (the case titles are actually things like "USA vs. $25,000 US Currency"). This ability has created perverse consequences, such as turning police into nothing more than a band of highway robbers [1]. It's also used in drug cases, like DPR's, because it's far easier to obtain a civil judgment than a criminal one. He could be found not guilty on all counts, and still lose all of the money that this sale generates (he agreed to the sale of the coins in hopes of beating the civil forfeiture that will come later, but he has little chance of that). [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/tim-walberg-an-end-to-the-abuse-of-civil-forfeiture/2014/09/04/e7b9d07a-3395-11e4-9e92-0899b306bbea_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/tim-walberg-an-end-to...
fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
ij.org has some good info about civil asset forfeiture. WRT DPR, I would guess that in order to have any chance to successfully challenge the forfeiture he d likely find it necessary to incriminate himself.
InclinedPlane 12y ago
Civil forfeiture does not require a criminal conviction of the owner of the property. Most importantly, in civil forfeiture it's not the owner who is on trial, it's the property. And unlike criminal law which works on the premise of presumption of innocence and requirements of proof of guilt "beyond reasonable doubt", asset forfeiture works based on civil law and the standard of "preponderance of evidence" (or a >50% probability of guilt).
Istof 12y ago
you don't need to be guilty of anything for being victim of civil forfeiture.. they create a lawsuit against your property and property is considered guilty until proven innocent, unlike people.

I don't have a deep grasp of Civil Forfeiture but it seems like this is unusual considering DPR has not been convicted of anything yet. Is this part of a plea bargin or something similar?

mmanfrin 12y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_...

emhart 12y ago

from the link, and their all caps treatment preserved: ON JANUARY 27, 2014, THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ENTERED A STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR INTERLOCUTORY SALE OF BITCOINS WHEREIN THE UNITED STATES AND ROSS WILLIAM ULBRICHT AGREED THAT THE UNITED STATES MAY SELL ANY PORTION OR ALL OF THE COMPUTER HARDWARE BITCOINS ON A DATE OR DATES IN A MANNER TO BE DETERMINED BY THE GOVERNMENT. So, it sounds like he clearly agreed to something, as he is mentioned by name here.

rrggrr 12y ago
The "Computer Hardware Bitcoins" term is notable and I wonder to which statute it refers. What actions were taken or crime alleged where it would be important to characterize Bitcoins in this way? I speculate that Ulbrict needs funds to pay attorneys fees. It may be he stipulated to a portion (or all) of the BTC as his in-exchange for unfreezing the asset and permitting its sale.
- waterlesscloud 12y ago
  That term is parenthesized and quoted on the site, so it must refer to something in particular. (“COMPUTER HARDWARE BITCOINS”) EDIT- They're referred to that way in the stipulation agreement he made to allow them to be sold (pdf) http://www.usmarshals.gov/assets/2014/dpr-bitcoins/order.pdf http://www.usmarshals.gov/assets/2014/dpr-bitcoins/order.pdf
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > The "Computer Hardware Bitcoins" term is notable and I wonder to which statute it refers. It doesn't refer to a statute. It is a short form to refer to what is described in long form in the first paragraph of the notice as "THE BITCOINS CONTAINED IN WALLET FILES THAT RESIDED ON CERTAIN COMPUTER HARDWARE BELONGING TO ROSS WILLIAM ULBRICHT". (The same long description, and the explicit linkage of the same short form to that long description, is in the linked Stipulation and Order from the court allowing the sale.) The stipulation also refers to the reason -- Ulbricht and the Government agreed to the sale to convert the bitcoins into dollars to protect both parties from risk due to volatility; the bitcoins are not being forfeited at this time, the forfeiture action will continue with the proceeds of the sale as the subject property rather than the bitcoins themselves.
waterlesscloud 12y ago
It's amusing to see the url uses "dpr-bitcoins", DPR being the common community abbreviation for Dread Pirate Roberts. I mean, that's what they are, just funny to see the govt refer to him that way. http://www.usmarshals.gov/assets/2014/dpr-bitcoins/ http://www.usmarshals.gov/assets/2014/dpr-bitcoins/
tedunangst 12y ago
It is clearly in Ross's interests to permit the sale. He's not DPR, remember? So these aren't his bitcoins and he therefore doesn't care what happens to them.
- waterlesscloud 12y ago
  In the agreement document he explicitly claims ownership, and agrees to the sale since the price may go down before they are returned to him.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  Actually, these bitcoins are ones that Ulbricht claims are his, not the (much larger) set of bitcoins that weren't on his personal hardware which were linked to DPR which he did not claim (and which were the subject of an earlier sale.)
  - tedunangst 12y ago
    Oh, my bad. Sorry. I thought this was selling off more of the earlier Silk Road stash, not the "personal collection". Should have read more carefully.
  - pbhjpbhj 12y ago
    How does he claim to have acquired them, or has he not made any statement on that yet?
    - mark-r 12y ago
      When anything you say may be used against you, would you make any such public statement before the matter comes up in court?

ncallaway 12y ago

Civil forfeiture is different from criminal forfeiture in that it does _not_ require a guilty verdict. Civil forfeiture is against the _property_, and it puts the burden of proof on the owner of the property to prove that it was obtained legally. Here's another explanation of it that's probably better than mine: https://www.contributoria.com/issue/2014-08/539b517ba588a79174000034 https://www.contributoria.com/issue/2014-08/539b517ba588a791...

eyeareque 12y ago
So what happens if he legally obtained these bitcoins, but cannot prove that he did so? So he basically loses them before he even can prove that they are his or not? That doesn't seem right, it would make sense that the coins are held in an escrow status until he was proven guilty.. It seems to be a big loophole for the government to just go and steal whatever they want from you, before you've been proven guilty.
- SCHiM 12y ago
  More people have noticed this, there has also been an item in John Olivers talkshow about it. Very funny, but also very sad. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/06/john-oliver-civil-forfeiture_n_5938686.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/06/john-oliver-civil-f... Also this, an article mentioned in the show: http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/st...
- mason240 12y ago
  >That doesn't seem right It's not, and there has actually been a low-level national (US) dialog on the subject over the last month. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/11/10/363102433/police-can-seize-and-sell-assets-even-when-the-owner-broke-no-law http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/11/10/363102433/pol...
- valarauca1 12y ago
  Civil forfeiture is really screwed up [1]. >So he basically loses them before he even can prove that they are his or not? Yes goods are guilty until proven innocent in court. >It seems to be a big loophole for the government to just go and steal whatever they want from you, before you've been proven guilty. It kinda is. Watch the link. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks

tigerente 12y ago

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver has recently done a show summarizing the issue around Civil Forfeiture: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks

x1798DE 12y ago

Civil asset forfeiture cases in the US, insanely, have a reversed burden of proof and are in re actions against the assets to be seized. When assets are seized by law enforcement, you have to petition for them to be returned and prove that you came by them lawfully. You don't ever need to be convicted of or even charged with a crime in order to have your assets seized. I don't know anything about how long law enforcement has to wait before selling your assets.

schoen 12y ago
Should be in rem (against a thing) instead of in re (in a matter) in this case. The Latin preposition in can take the accusative case, in which case it means 'into, onto, against' or the ablative case, in which case it means 'in, inside of'.

ceejayoz 12y ago

Read this investigative series and become furious: http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/collection/stop-and-seize-2/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/collection/st...

giodamelio 12y ago

My understanding is this. The government found a bunch of bitcoins on a computer that may or may not have belonged to Ross Ulbricht, so they asked him "Are all these bitcoins yours?". Ross can't say that they are without admitting his guilt, so the government auctions them off.

whyenot 12y ago
Your understanding is wrong. From the order: WHEREAS, on or about December 12, 2013, Ulbricht filed a timely verified claim in this proceeding, asserting an ownership interest in the Computer Hardware Bitcoins
- desdiv 12y ago
  To add to that, Ulbricht voluntarily agreed to this sale: WHEREAS, the Government and Ulbricht agree that, due to the volatile market for bitcoins, the Computer Hardware Bitcoins risk losing value during the pendency of the forfeiture proceedings; WHEREAS, the Government and Ulbricht agree that the Computer Hardware Bitcoins are to be liquidated or sold by the Government before the conclusion of the forfeiture proceedings, with the net proceeds of the sale to be held as substitute res pending further order of this Court;

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

whyenot 12y ago

Everyone seems to be going off on a tangent about civil forfeiture. From the order: http://www.usmarshals.gov/assets/2014/dpr-bitcoins/order.pdf http://www.usmarshals.gov/assets/2014/dpr-bitcoins/order.pdf WHEREAS, the Government and Ulbricht agree that, due to the volatile market for bitcoins, the Computer Hardware Bitcoins risk losing value during the pendency of the forfeiture proceedings; WHEREAS, the Government and Ulbricht agree that the Computer Hardware Bitcoins are to be liquidated or sold by the Government before the conclusion of the forfeiture proceedings, with the net proceeds of the sale to be held as substitute res pending further order of this Court;

stronglikedan 12y ago
So basically, put the current value of the coins in escrow, instead of the coins themselves, in case they drop in value dramatically over time. Makes sense to me.
- kordless 12y ago
  A forced sale of an asset is NOT the same as putting it into escrow.
  - EpicEng 12y ago
    What text on that excerpt leads you to believe this was forced?
    - sneak 12y ago
      The "US Marshalls" part.
      - pg_is_a_butt 12y ago
        considering there is no "US Marshalls" part, and the Government was only referenced as "the Government".... you're an idiot.
      - 12y ago

dragonwriter 12y ago

Its worth noting that while they have been seized, they have not yet been forfeited -- that action is ongoing. The sale was agreed to secure the value and protect the government and Ulbricht both from price volatility; the forfeiture action will continue against the sale proceeds.

downandout 12y ago

Civil forfeiture is one of the scariest areas of our legal system. The government essentially files a civil lawsuit against your property, and it then it's on you to get it back (the case titles are actually things like "USA vs. $25,000 US Currency"). This ability has created perverse consequences, such as turning police into nothing more than a band of highway robbers [1]. It's also used in drug cases, like DPR's, because it's far easier to obtain a civil judgment than a criminal one. He could be found not guilty on all counts, and still lose all of the money that this sale generates (he agreed to the sale of the coins in hopes of beating the civil forfeiture that will come later, but he has little chance of that). [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/tim-walberg-an-end-to-the-abuse-of-civil-forfeiture/2014/09/04/e7b9d07a-3395-11e4-9e92-0899b306bbea_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/tim-walberg-an-end-to...

fnordfnordfnord 12y ago

ij.org has some good info about civil asset forfeiture. WRT DPR, I would guess that in order to have any chance to successfully challenge the forfeiture he d likely find it necessary to incriminate himself.

InclinedPlane 12y ago

Civil forfeiture does not require a criminal conviction of the owner of the property. Most importantly, in civil forfeiture it's not the owner who is on trial, it's the property. And unlike criminal law which works on the premise of presumption of innocence and requirements of proof of guilt "beyond reasonable doubt", asset forfeiture works based on civil law and the standard of "preponderance of evidence" (or a >50% probability of guilt).

Istof 12y ago

you don't need to be guilty of anything for being victim of civil forfeiture.. they create a lawsuit against your property and property is considered guilty until proven innocent, unlike people.