If it's "clearly illegal," the court should have no trouble coming to the correct conclusion. It's no justification for permanent asset forfeiture without a trial.
> If it's "clearly illegal," the court should have no trouble coming to the correct conclusion. It's no justification for permanent asset forfeiture without a trial.
You can't have a trial with only one party.
The owner of the bitcoins had an opportunity to contest the forfeiture, and didn't step forward to do that. Given the value of the bitcoins and the public nature of the seizure and forfeiture actions, its hardly likely that that was due to lack of effective notice, or it not being worth expending effort to protect the assets.
They're explicitly not selling the Bitcoins seized from his personal wallet(s). They're selling the ones seized from the servers that ran Silk Road.
My bet would be that Ulbricht has denied any connection to those servers as part of his defense since claiming to own/control them would make it too easy for the government to prove its case. If, at this point, those servers belong to anyone else, they're free to come forward and claim to own them...that would stop the sale.
So if no one claims to own them, they're fair game for the government to sell.
Somehow I doubt that's how it works, or at least I really hope it doesn't work that way. The government seizes something and attempts to sell it off before identifying who it belongs to? Sure, sounds the right way to handle things.
The forfeiture action is a civil proceeding against the asset itself. If somebody has a claim to the asset, they can come forward and contest the proceeding, and potentially win. However, in a case like this, coming forward would essentially identify yourself as a co-conspirator in a clearly illegal enterprise. As such, nobody came forward, so a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff was granted because nobody was there to represent themselves as the owner of the asset.
