Law & Policy
A space to discuss Blockchain, Crypto, and Web3 Law & Policy
Vasu pfp
0 reply
1 recast
6 reactions
Inca pfp
0 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
matthewb pfp
1 reply
13 recasts
26 reactions
Philipp Petkevitch pfp
1 reply
1 recast
4 reactions
matthewb pfp
small clarification on the verdict: - Count 1 (conspiracy to commit money laundering): jury not unanimous - Count 2 (conspiracy to run an unlicensed money-transmitting business): jury found guilty - Count 3 (conspiracy to evade sanctions): jury not unanimous it was initially reported that Count 3 was found not guilty by the jury but they were not unanimous, same as Count 1. https://x.com/frankcorva/status/1953133443631493521 a jury for a criminal case in this venue needs to be unanimous in their verdict on each count. in other words, 12/12 jurors need to agree guilty or not guilty. if they cannot reach a unanimous verdict, the judge can force them to continue deliberating (Allen charge). that is what happened here but they still returned without a unanimous verdict on Count 1 and 3. this means that the DoJ can decide to retry for one or both of those counts. the risk for the prosecution is that a new jury could find him not guilty on one or both of those charges. the risk for the defense is that they could find him guilty on one or both. and of course there could be another hung jury and it’s a waste of everyone’s time. I can write a longer post about Count 2 and why it’s important for developers, but the likely outcome here is that a motion to appeal will be filed by the defence and this will go to the second circuit. it is the charge with the most holes in it, something even Judge Failla admitted in the proceedings.
2 replies
4 recasts
31 reactions
Birdnals.eth 🎩💩 pfp
0 reply
2 recasts
7 reactions
Inca pfp
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
matthewb pfp
0 reply
1 recast
9 reactions
Taylor pfp
1 reply
1 recast
9 reactions
Birdnals.eth 🎩💩 pfp
1 reply
2 recasts
12 reactions
Inca pfp
0 reply
1 recast
6 reactions
Taylor pfp
There's a lot to absorb in yesterday's crypto report from the White House. As a tax guy, I am pleased to see a lengthy discussion of priorities for tax regulations and legislation. There are some interesting tidbits in there. For example, it appears that the White House has not ruled out treating staking and mining rewards as self-created property. "Treasury and the IRS should review previously issued guidance related to the timing of income from staking and mining and consider whether to clarify, modify, or reverse that guidance." Also, the Administration seems inclined to treat stablecoins as some sort of debt instrument rather than money, but favors legislation that would facilitate "the widespread use of payment stablecoins as financial assets that function in a similar manner to cash-equivalents." It will be interesting to see how this report influences tax legislation currently pending in Congress. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Digital-Assets-Report-EO14178.pdf
0 reply
2 recasts
6 reactions
Inca pfp
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Nick Rishwain pfp
0 reply
1 recast
3 reactions
Birdnals.eth 🎩💩 pfp
1 reply
2 recasts
5 reactions