Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

xsvfan t1_ivkhgj7 wrote

Reply to comment by Pope_Cerebus in TIL: That in 2019, some criminals were caught and 36 BTC was confiscated. The authorities valued the worth at €127,000 at the time and was sold 2 years later for €1.5 million. The criminals were returned €1.3 million due to the fact that the amount was expressed in Swedish Krona, not BTC by Wendals87

The part where I'm confused is why does it go to the criminals and not the people who were stolen from?

88

Pope_Cerebus t1_ivkht7y wrote

Because the people lost the 127k. They got that back. The criminals got refunded the remaining 1.3 million.

209

foodfighter t1_ivkt60a wrote

The original BTC owners would now have to litigate the criminals to argue that the criminals profited from illegally holding onto BTC that wasn't theirs, but that would likely be a civil case.

Interesting to see how that would work out.

Edit: I see it was proceeds of drug trafficking that was being held in BTC, so there are no "prior owners" in that sense of the word. Still - lesson learned for the Swedish po-po.

93

Pope_Cerebus t1_ivku6qg wrote

The problem is it's highly unlikely they actually stole bitcoin directly. It's much more likely they stole money through wire transfers/credit cards/etc. and routed it through a bitcoin exchange so the transaction couldn't be reversed.

49

foodfighter t1_ivkzm61 wrote

Could well be.

Like I said - it'd be an interesting legal case to follow.

8

esjay86 t1_ivlswg9 wrote

But isn't one of the basic ideas of forfeiture that you lose the thing seized in its entirety, lose any and all interest, including any future profits? I imagine that in most other places, once the authorities take it from you, it's gone.

2

AzureDrag0n1 t1_ivmzrmi wrote

To what point though? Say a criminal steals $50,000 and creates a successful business with it worth millions or maybe even billions. Does the criminal lose all rights and profits to the business? It is not just money that requires a business to be successful.

2

batatatchugen t1_ivldfxo wrote

The victims involuntarily had their money invested in bitcoin, they could argue that in this sense they should have the equivalent share of the ROI.

−2

the_runtt t1_ivln9ou wrote

That's ridiculous. If they had spent it on coke and hookers it would also be fair game then to split the fiver that remained when justice caught up.

5

CyanideNow t1_ivlt1cj wrote

No. Nothing was stolen. There were no original bitcoin owners. The bitcoin was drug proceeds.

4

Splarnst t1_ivl1lk8 wrote

But they didn’t lose 127k; they lost 36 BTC.

−9

Pope_Cerebus t1_ivl2bzh wrote

Did they? So if BTC had dropped to $10 instead of going up, would you say those people had only lost $360, even though it was 127k when it was stolen?

How about the fact that it's highly unlikely the money was stolen as bitcoin, but was far more likely to have been stolen directly out of normal accounts and converted into bitcoin? So if I steal $10,000 from your bank and use it to buy a car, did I steal your money, or did I steal your car?

12

derpbynature t1_ivlskya wrote

The whole point seems to be that the prosecutors specified the amount stolen in the equivalent in fiat (Krona) at the time, rather than saying 36 BTC, leading to this situation.

So, the criminals had to give back the amount specified in fiat, even though BTC had increased in value in the meantime.

1

LordCharidarn t1_ivm56wj wrote

Not necessarily.

The criminals stole 127k in fiat from the victims. The cops did not seize 127k in currency, but they did find 36 BTC and took that when arresting the criminals.

They then sold the 36 BTC to collect the 127k in fiat. They returned the 127k to the victims. They returned the remaining 1.3 million in fiat to the criminals because they could not prove the rest if the money was criminally obtained.

It would be like if you had to foreclose on your 30 year mortgage after paying into it for 10 years. The bank would sell your house and (assuming the house was sold for around what you bought it for) the bank would take about 2/3rds of the sale price and you would get the other 1/3rd back (without complicated contractual agreements).

1

WildIcePick t1_ivkn6z1 wrote

Where are you reading they stole the money? The gained the money through online sale of drugs. As far as I can see in there was not victim of theft.

15

SurturOfMuspelheim t1_ivkj9j3 wrote

Because the police couldn't prove they stole the rest of the money or they didn't steal it, so why should they lose that?

8

Keffpie t1_ivnsdbn wrote

There was no theft, it was drug money from online sales.

2

Falsus t1_ivoe76l wrote

Because it was valued for 127k. It just happened to sell for more.

This law wasn't exactly made with things that fluctuates in value as rapidly as bitcoin is.

1