Bitcoin Jesus issues and Maryland are large lawyers for encryption and taxes

Two modern criminal tax cases show, one focusing on encryption and one less than how digital assets make their way to the normal legal process that involves the application of criminal taxes.

the The Ministry of Justice announced in the United StatesIn April 2024, it was charged that Roger Keith Fair, known by his followers as “Bitcoin Jesus”, was charged with fraud and taxes, including fraud, tax evasion, and the provision of misconceptions. The indictment claimed that Ver, a former California resident who reached St. Kitts and Nevis in 2014, hidden the assets and provided wrong information during the expatriate operation to evade taxes, including the “exit tax” on Bitcoin. The press statement issued by the Ministry of Justice claimed that Ver sold tens of thousands of bitcoin without reporting or paying taxes on distributions from his US -based companies, which caused a loss of $ 48 million to the Tax Authority. The United States sought to deliver Ver from Spain to trial. On December 3, 2024, VER submitted a rejection and on January 13, 2025, the government submitted its opposition. This is one of the first glimpses in the area of ​​enforcement of the cryptocurrency after the elections, where a regulatory scene and friendly enforcement were promised.

On January 16, 2025, Maryland’s lawyer was directed By the Federal Grand Compliance, on 22 charges, including tax evasion, assistance in preparing wrong tax declarations, non -payment of taxes, and making wrong data for mortgage lenders. Thomas C retires. Goldstein from the Practice of the United States Supreme Court, According to the article of ABA magazineIn 2023, indicating that the change in the Supreme Court made it difficult to struggle for a young man. Now he faces accusations that, if it is proven that there is no room for doubt, it may lead to contracts in prison. Most allegations of the indictment involve the deletion of legal fees income, the abuse of gambling and debt gains, or are linked to the alleged “fake employment relationships” with many women, and government claims were involved in intimate relations with Goldstein. Amid the scandalous allegations involving gambling, betrayal, and coarse fabric bags, the indictment also claims that Goldstein has made 280 transactions of encrypted currency, but he answered “no” on his tax return about making any virtual currency transactions.

Can the Ministry of Justice finally reach the Bitcoin Jesus?

He has The proposal to refuseVer (AKA Bitcoin Jesus), claimed that the exit tax itself violated the constitution, and that the legal standards that involve the tax treatment of the encrypted currency were unconstitutionally vague, and that the evidence used in the indictment was incomplete and that full publications show that Ver made every attempt Correctly follow the tax laws. Many tax consultants, including this author, have struggled to answer the difficult questions related to digital assets when he does not address the limited tax department instructions. Each of the indictment and proposal to refuse that VER has in fact requested legal and tax advice during the time the government provided little directions.

In its opposition, the first governments are for the court to ignore the fully dismissal proposal until Ver is delivered under the “fleeing principle of entitlement”. Basically, if you are running away, you do not have the right to use the courts for pre -trial claims such as VER’s suggestion. Since VER did not already escape from the United States due to criminal prosecution (that is, the expatriates had already been done years ago) the government claimed a “constructive journey” and other fair arguments to avoid a decision on the proposal to dismiss. Perhaps the assumption that these fair arguments may fail, as the government also addresses the advantages. First, the United States claims that all charges do not involve the exit tax, so even if the exit tax is determined to be other unconstitutional charges. Then the government’s opposition attack Ver constitutional claims.

VER’s constitutional arguments include relying on the recently defined ruling of the Supreme Court in Mov against the United States. According to VER, taxes cannot be imposed on the unreasonable estimate in the value of the original as income and because the exit tax taxes, this uninterrupted estimate is unconstitutional. The government responds that perception does not determine constitutionality, and that such strict condition will question many other taxes based on constructive sales. The remaining constitutional arguments from VER depend on violations of due legal procedures and the ambiguity of the tax laws that involve an encrypted currency. While there are legitimate complaints about the lack of guidance and the difficulties caused by the decision of the expatriates, it remains to see whether these concerns are sufficient to pass the legal standards required to make the law unconstitutional. At least, arguments raise questions about whether the government can use the threat of criminal procedures regarding tax laws that can be said to lack the required guidance to analyze the appropriate tax treatment. A listening session was determined on the suggestion of the chapter on February 10, 2025.

Will encryption become common in criminal tax cases?

Unlike VER, it is not claimed that Goldstein was an early adoption of the encrypted currency. Although the indictment includes allegations of return to 2016, the claims related to financial interests in the encrypted currency are claimed only by tax declarations of 2020 and 2021. Also, in the charges of 13 and 14 of the indictment, it is claimed that Goldstein helped and assisted In preparing the wrong and fraudulent tax declaration by answering “no” on the question that asks whether he has received, was sold, sent, exchanged or exchanged otherwise, he acquired any financial interest in any virtual currency. The previous criminal accusations of abuse of encrypted transactions, such as the indictment against Ver, include previous tax years when this question was not included in an individual tax approval (IRS 1040 model).

The question related to transactions in the coded currency for the first time appeared on the tax authority model 1040 in 2019, but it was included in Table 1 for this tax declaration. Version 2020 from the Tax Authority 1040The first tax year in the case was transferred to the indictment, the question to a more prominent place, immediately after the introduction of your name and address. A similar question was also included about whether taxpayers have interests in foreign bank accounts in a schedule to form 1040, and the subsequent litigation has been asked whether the question has not been answered or has just been overlooked. For criminal tax cases, this makes proof of the main feature of the will more problematic. The Tax Authority, which knows this previous problem with foreign bank accounts, decided to transfer the issue of virtual currency to its most obvious place at the return.

Main encrypted currency trading It increased significantly in 2020 Just as it took the individual tax declaration question in cryptocurrency transactions, its new prominent position. Many taxpayers now carry investments in the encrypted currency as well. Therefore, this criminal tax charge may become more common in individual criminal tax cases. Whether this particular accusation begged between the most prominent shipments, they still have to be seen. However, it will be interesting to know whether the government is trying to pay this claim while continuing the criminal case or in any later press data for its deterrent impact on other taxpayers with encrypted currency holdings.