zlacker

>>wut42+(OP)
I'm all for freedom and individual rights and all of that. But you also have to look at what is going on here.

This person is suspected of selling Bitcoin for cash.

It says so right in the article:

"undercover cops sought to identify the individual behind the online moniker “elonmuskwhm,” who they suspect of selling bitcoin for cash"

Says it right there.

To anyone who thinks that is acceptable or that there is some sort of overreaction by the authorities, I don't even need three words to refute you. Three numbers is enough:

9-11

>>rufus_+W9
> This person is suspected of selling Bitcoin for cash.

There must be more to it than that; buying and selling Bitcoin isn't illegal.

>>politi+da
Well, in the US in general it might be. The police are saying that it is probably a crime under money laundering and unlicensed money transmitting laws. The issue is that particular set of laws are mostly outrageous and quite unintuitive in practice. They criminalise a lot of quite reasonable activity - in this case, like selling bitcoin for cash.

Although the thread root refutation makes no sense. Freely trading bitcoin leading to 9-11 is going to have to involve some flexible mental gymnastics since 9-11 happened in a pre-Bitcoin world. In practice AML style laws are generally targeting tax evasion.

>>roenxi+6b
Perhaps the police are trying to find a way to apply asset forfeiture because Bitcoin is so valuable? That would make more sense than AML because police forces don’t generally investigate those crimes — enforcement is usually the domain of FinCen and banks.