Quote from: AgentofCoin on April 21, 2016, 07:56:44 PM

Quote from: snoovering on April 21, 2016, 07:40:46 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on April 21, 2016, 07:31:11 PM

Quote from: snoovering on April 21, 2016, 07:01:30 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on April 21, 2016, 06:17:35 PM

Quote from: snoovering on April 21, 2016, 06:11:10 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on April 21, 2016, 05:07:45 PM

Quote from: mayax on April 21, 2016, 04:20:29 PM

...

...

...

...

...

...

You should'a sold your pro lawyerin' to that pair of financial moguls, maybe they wouldn't "have plead guilty to running an unlicensed bitcoin exchange" & pushin' Xanax

If they were legitimately selling prescription drugs while selling btc, then they are probably morons.
It may even be possible they they were actually drug dealers, who were just using bitcoin for payments,
and thus the government tacked on "unlicensed exchange" as well. I would need to see the complaint to
know what the case is actually about.

But ultimately, they are guilty of being an unlicensed money transmitter if their state defines them as that.

My only argument throughout this thread is that not all jurisdictions are the same. Unlike some people think.
In theory, if these two people sold btc within a friendly state, they would be free men right now.

A Louisiana man and his son have plead guilty to running an unlicensed bitcoin exchange. So, Louisiana requires a financial license for Bitcoin

Please read these :

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/01/louisiana_bitcoin.html

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/mtgoxs-dwolla-account-seized-1368760437

Also, please name one State that doesn't require a license for bitcoin(e-currency) exchanges.