undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjpmattia12y ago0 comments

> You can't use the proceeds of crime to fund your defense.

And how is it determined (beyond a reasonable doubt, with a vigorous defense) that you committed a crime to yield those proceeds?

0 comments

mikeryan12y ago

Tax returns - or the lack thereof. There's almost no way in the US to make more than about 10k without it being traceable.

Also I can totally be wrong about this its one of those "I' think I heard this a few times" but I think this is one of those things where the burden of proof ends up more on the side of the accused then on the gov't.

ferdo12y ago

> the burden of proof ends up more on the side of the accused then on the gov't.

That's how tyrannies operate.

dragonwriter12y ago

The burden of proof is on the government.

The thing is, proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not mathematical/logical proof, it's (as I recall the jury instructions I've seen on this) basically proof to a degree that a reasonably diligent person would use in their most important business dealings.

Multiple sources of evidence that point in the same direction, even when there are theoretically possible innocent explanations for all them, can still constitute "proof beyond a reasonable doubt", which is not "proof beyond any doubt".

derekp712y ago

The way I understand it, you can analyze it mathematically. Say one piece of circumstantial evidence puts the likelihood of guilt at 20%/ not guilty at 80%. Now another one has a 15/85 ratio. Take that 15% from 80%, and you now have a 68% not guilty / 32% guilty. Keep going until you have a good enough number, and you have your verdict. Now what that number should be? 90% guilty? 95%?

1 more reply

patmcguire12y ago

They can also do it in the form of suing the assets - the money is the defendant. There's no presumption of innocence and you have to establish a preponderance of evidence that it's legit.

jpmattiaOP12y ago

> Tax returns - or the lack thereof.

And how is it determined (beyond a reasonable doubt, with a vigorous defense) whether or not you committed the crime of tax evasion?

jlgreco12y ago

On the topic of tax evasion... what if they arrest somebody and find many thousands of bitcoins in their possession, but that somebody claims that they mined them themselves (and the block-chain confirms they weren't transferred)? What if they were all mined when they were basically worthless?

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

mikeryan12y ago

Tax returns - or the lack thereof. There's almost no way in the US to make more than about 10k without it being traceable.

ferdo12y ago

> the burden of proof ends up more on the side of the accused then on the gov't.

That's how tyrannies operate.

dragonwriter12y ago

The burden of proof is on the government.

derekp712y ago

1 more reply

patmcguire12y ago

They can also do it in the form of suing the assets - the money is the defendant. There's no presumption of innocence and you have to establish a preponderance of evidence that it's legit.

jpmattiaOP12y ago

> Tax returns - or the lack thereof.

And how is it determined (beyond a reasonable doubt, with a vigorous defense) whether or not you committed the crime of tax evasion?

jlgreco12y ago

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse