Bitcoin 'not real money' says Miami judge in closely watched ruling

A Miami court judge has sent ripples through the cryptocurrency community in a ruling in which she said bitcoin was not real money.

Defendant Michel Espinoza was on trial for illegally transmitting and laundering $1,500 worth of bitcoins to undercover agents who intended to use them to purchase stolen credit cards.

His attorney argued that the charges should be dismissed because, under Florida state law, the cyber-currency could not be considered money. After extended deliberation, Judge Teresa Mary Pooler agreed in a ruling issued on Monday.

Craig Wright U-turns on pledge to provide evidence he invented bitcoin
Read more
“This court is not an expert in economics,” Pooler wrote in her ruling. “However, it is very clear, even to someone with limited knowledge in the area, that bitcoin has a long way to go before it is equivalent of money.”

She proceeded to dismiss all three counts against the defendant.

Due to the severe lack of jurisprudence and ambiguous regulations surrounding bitcoin, Espinoza’s case has been a focus of interest for the virtual currency community but the ramifications remain unclear.

Bitcoin is a virtual currency that allows its users to exchange value online and that can allow the source, or recipient, of the funds to remain anonymous. As it’s grown in popularity among netizens, and libertarians who distrust the central banking system, it has also gained a reputation for use in nefarious transactions.

Charles Evans, associate professor of finance and economics at Barry University, has studied virtual currencies extensively. He was hired as an expert witness by the defense in Espinoza’s case, where he testified that bitcoin is not money.

“Today is a good day,” Evans said. “The battle isn’t finished but at this particular moment we should all take our victories where we can take them and this counts as a victory.”

Evans said bitcoin users in Florida would now have an easier time sending bitcoin as remittances with fewer regulatory hurdles, as a result of this ruling. Individual users will not be considered money transmitters and they are free to purchase bitcoin using real money.

But Judith Alison Lee, a partner at the Gibson Dunn law firm who has written on virtual currency regulations in the US, said the judge’s ruling was counter to the direction federal regulators were headed.

“This decision by the judge is flat-right inconsistent with what the feds are doing,” Lee said. “It is surprising.”

The case’s ramifications, however, may be limited due to the small jurisdiction of the court, she added.

Espinoza’s money-laundering charges were also dismissed in the case, but more due to the circumstance of his arrest. Undercover detectives bought bitcoin from Espinoza after informing him they intended to use the virtual currency to purchase stolen credit card numbers. The judge found that this did not equate to laundering. “There is unquestionably no evidence that the defendant did anything wrong, other than sell his bitcoin to an investigator who wanted to make a case.”

Brian Klein, a partner at the Baker Marquart law firm in California who works on financial technology cases, said the case could have wider ramifications.

“The judge got it right,” he said. “Florida law enforcement overreached in charging Espinoza as it did. This decision will reverberate throughout the country and hopefully cause federal and state prosecutors to think twice before pursuing similar criminal charges.”

The case is one of very few court rulings on bitcoin and there were no regulations whatsoever in Florida before this case, which Judge Pooler noted in her ruling.

“The Florida legislature may choose to adopt statutes regulating virtual currency in the future,” Pooler wrote. “At this time, however, attempting to fit the sale of bitcoin into a statutory scheme regulating money services business is like fitting a square peg in a round hole.”

Regulators have been grappling with how to address bitcoin as more Americans adopt it. Many financial regulations operate at the state level. New York has been the most aggressive state in tackling bitcoin, introducing a BitLicense which provides a framework for bitcoin businesses.

At the federal level, FinCEN, the agency within the treasury department that handles crime, has been aggressively trying to clamp down on illegal activity using bitcoin. The Internal Revenue Service taxes bitcoin as intangible personal property, not currency.