Florida Courts About To "Legalize" Bitcoin
We saw some states take initiative to become "crypto-friendly". This is the result of elected houses that were open to the idea of trying to attract businesses in the new technology. A few states either have or are close to allowing taxes to be paid in crypto. This is a huge step.
There is an interesting situation developing that could really cause waves throughout the financial stratosphere.
The issue resolves around a simple question: how can you have money laundering without money?
This is the exact issue that is going to an court of appeals. The decision that comes out will have ramifications throughout the entire state.
At the center of this is money laundering and unauthorized money transmitter charges brought against one who ran a digital-currency trading website. The case was initially dismissed by the Judge who deemed that Bitcoin did not meet the definition of money.
Thus far, the 3rd District Court put forth that while Bitcoin does not constitute money, it does act a medium of exchange and should be considered legal tender. This was the grounds the court used for retaking the original case against Michell Espinoza.
It is easy to see how there is much more at stake than one person being tried for money laundering. By taking this position, the court is establishing that Bitcoin be recognized as legal tender. This would open the door for acceptance throughout the entire state.
The case is still open without a resolution. If Espinoza is charged with the crimes, then the state has to recognize Bitcoin as legal tender.
Of course, this could be appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court but there is no guarantee they take the case. Refusal to hear the case, if it went that far, would open the door for other states to follow suit.
It certainly does create an interesting quandary. We have, I am sure, a zealous prosecutor, trying to make a name for him or herself, bringing charges. By turning the case away, the established way of doing things was protected. Now, however, with the decision being appealed to a higher court and that court deciding to take the case based upon Bitcoin being legal tender, the present system faces disruption.
This also poses a double-edged sword for cryptocurrency. By recognizing it as legal tender, all transacting entities must be licensed. This would put it back in the hands of Wall Street. Of course, decentralized exchanges are the way around this negating the need for any licensing.
One other interesting legal point could be raised regarding the Lightning Network. A case could be made that anyone handling transactions on that network in the United States would require a money transmitter license. Failure to procure one would be subject to criminal charges.
This case is worth watching.
If you found this article informative, please give an upvote and resteem.
This is a very interesting case and one to definitely follow. It becomes a catch 22 and if the law follows it's course it should see Bicoin accepted or legalized.
Lion Of Gold
It would be interesting to hear how that case could be made.
Government regulation has always been a double edge sword too.
One that protects the rights of every citizen, the other side is used to harass, manipulate, control, influence, directly or indirectly the citizen in a much negative, resulting to gains of only a few rich, elite members of the society and those sitting on government offices.
Posted using Partiko iOS
To listen to the audio version of this article click on the play image.
Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvoting this reply.
Fantastica información!! Gracias.
I think many are well aware of the implications which is why they have taken so long to move forward. The inability for agencies to enforce what could come has them carefully treading water. I think it would be more beneficial for regulatory frameworks to be created by the participants rather than being set by precedent in court but it all comes down to the “chicken or the egg” concept.
Posted using Partiko iOS
I never heard that Bitcoin was illegal, thus how could it be legalized?
Anyway, if Bitcoin were to be considered legal tender, then I believe that it cannot be considered a capital asset (correct me if I'm wrong). This is huge for tax purposes.
I hope they will
Posted using Partiko iOS
Thank you so much for participating the Partiko Delegation Plan Round 1! We really appreciate your support! As part of the delegation benefits, we just gave you a 3.00% upvote! Together, let’s change the world!