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.

Sure. If you're a Somali exchange, you don't have to follow US law. But you do have to be licensed in US to do business with US nationals.
No different from being a licensed Somali doctor. You can write Addy scripts to your Somali patients, but not in US. Gotta be US-licensed to write for US nationals on US soil.
TL;DR: being legal somewhere != being legal in US

snoovering

Posts

Merits