zlacker

>>mikeyo+(OP)
Shouldn't all true crypto believers hate this news?

It's the government trying to enforce their opinion of who should own those Bitcoins, thereby taking power away from the owner that the network has decided on, which would be "whoever has the cryptographic keys".

>>fxtent+35
Technically they were charged with conspiring to launder money, completely unrelated to any mention of theft or hacking.

From TFA: "Court papers filed against the couple did not accuse them of the hack itself; officials declined to say if the pair are suspected of stealing the money."

>>robgib+kn
Interesting point, but if the government considered whoever had control of the coins the rightful owner and not stolen, would it be laundering then? It doesn't sound like a problem of taxes.

>>codesp+Aq
Laundering is any process to legitimize illicit income. It does not matter who owns the coins or other assets in question. What matters is if the coins represent any vehicle of fund transfer that originate from any form of criminal enterprise or other unreported financial activity.

>>austin+Cs
So they could have reported the stolen coins it as income, paid taxes, and they'd be in the clear?

>>acchow+iA
How are you arriving to this conclusion? Paying taxes on illicit income does not make the income non-illicit. It just makes you easier to catch.

>>dvt+JG
I was replying under some comment thread about the the government "not legitimizing" bitcoin, and thus not considering "bitcoin theft" to be actual theft.

And thus the only crime here being tax evasion.