Governments Case Against Silk Road is Surprisingly WeakEric Blair When the Internal Revenue Service issued tax guidance stating Bitcoinis not money, Ulbrichts attorney immediately filed a motion to dismiss money laundering charges. The argument being if bitcoin is not considered a monetary instrument, money laundering charges cannot apply. However, yesterday the prosecutor responded to the motion to dismiss by directly contradicting the IRS guidance claiming that bitcoin fits comfortably in the governments broad definition of funds. Bitcoin transactions comfortably fit within the broad language of the definition, wroteAssistant U.S. Attorney Serrin Turner. as Bitcoins are funds, and Bitcoin transactions, which are conducted via the Internet, therefore involve the movement of funds by wire or other means.' Turners best legal argument that bitcoin transactions fall within the broad language of the definition seems flimsy compared to IRSs official guidance. It is obvious to anyone who uses bitcoin that it acts as a currency, but if the U.S. government claims otherwise, then money laundering charges should be dropped or the IRS must reconsider bitcoins classification. Computer hacking is another dubious charge in Ulbrichts case. Pretty much any unauthorized computer innovation or activity may fall into this category as weve seen with the tragic case of Aaron Swartz and the recently exoneratedAndrew weev Auernheimer. Both accessed public content via the Internet and prosecutors sought sentences equivalent to rape and murder.Swartz, facing $1 million in fines and 35 years in prison, committed suicidetwo days after the prosecution denied his lawyers second offer of a plea bargain. Silk Road was a first-of-its-kind website that allowed users to engage in anonymous commerce by cleverly combining dark web hosting, the Tor browser, and bitcoin. Additionally, its unique automated escrow feature allowed users to achieve trust without revealing their identities. Because of its exotic anonymity features, the feds impulsively assume computer hacking or fraud was somehow involved except for one tiny detail there is no victim of the alleged hacking. It seems like a vague tack-on charge used to justify forcing decades in prison to a non-violent offender. Even the drug conspiracy charge is weak despite the websites obvious use, as the prosecutors best argument is that current law is expansive and adaptable. The law they hope is adaptable isthe Communications Decency Act, 230(c), passed by Congress, which says a website owner is not legally responsible for illicit actions of its users. But Turner disagrees: It hardly matters that Ulbrichts conduct took place on the Internet, he argues. The federal criminal laws are expansive and adaptable, and readily reach his conduct online to the same extent as if it occurred on the street. In other words, the prosecution says Ulbricht should be treated like the kingpin of a violent drug cartel even though it appears that he merely ran an e-commerce website a rather insignificant charge that Ulbricht has pleaded not-guilty to. Ulbrichts defensesays the Communications Decency Act shields him from cartel-like charges and to say it doesnt is a threat to freedom and privacy for the entire Internet: So heres a brief recap of where the prosecutions case stands: Although the planned violence charge is not part of the ongoing case in New York, Ulbricht still faces these charges in Maryland, but the fact remains no violence ever occurred. 