Courts indulging in asset speculation?

This article regarding a U.S. prosecution set me wondering: is it acceptable (I for one don’t consider it moral at all) for a court to effectively speculate on the value of seized assets - especially whilst the trial is still in progress?

The way the journalist reported this article emphasises the prosecutors’ anxiety that they not miss out on any windfall due to the current BitCoin bubble. My inner cynic doubts if both the trial goes to the defence and at that time BitCoin happened to hold a higher value that the court would be eager to repurchase the original holdings again.

I don’t think courts should ever be allowed to play “double or quits” but others may disagree?

They want to get the best price on their drugbusting efforts. But probs should HODL.

1 Like

And fair enough - assuming the prosecutors win their case.

Long gone are the days when the legal logic “convert everything into cash and invest it in the lowest interest-bearing bank account” philosophy made any sense at all. Irrespective of who wins should not frozen/escrowed assets be competently managed for the duration of their holding - and a policy for “exotic” assets might be a good idea for the Party - assuming we don’t have one already?

1 Like

That’s something I have never actually considered, it would need to be looked into to see how much risk or of it’s even viable at all. A way around risk might be to take a percentage of the profits and place into a secondary account that can compensate the original value of funds lost. If this is possible then you could also look at again taking a percentage of profits to help pay for the court system.

Is there a way to find out how much police have seized awaiting trial?