Source: https://fr.scribd.com/document/398783586/Bitcoin-et-infraction-de-blanchiment
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 01:08:18+00:00

Document:
Bitcoin et infraction de blanchiment. Infirmation en appel de la décision d'une juridiction de première instance qui avait conclu qu'un prévenu ne pouvait être accusé de blanchiment d'argent car le bitcoin n'est pas une devise.
Opinion filed January 30, 2019.
Prieto Law Firm, P.A., and Frank Andrew Prieto, for appellee.
Currency & Ledger Defense Coalition, as amicus curiae.
Before EMAS, C.J., and SALTER, and LINDSEY, JJ.
Statutes (2014), to virtual currency.
leading member nation, to develop common definitions for virtual currency terms.
convertible virtual currency, and the first cryptocurrency.
each unit could be divided into smaller parts).
frequently done through the use of wallet applications.
private key becomes associated with it.
accept Bitcoins for goods and services.
accessed the Internet website https://localbitcoins.com seeking to purchase Bitcoin.
paid Espinoza $500 in cash and received 0.40322580 bitcoins valued at $416.12.
Espinoza earned a fee or profit of $83.67.
explained to Detective Arias how he makes money trading Bitcoin.
fee or profit for this second transaction to be approximately $167.56.
contacted Espinoza to arrange another transaction (the “third transaction”).
Citibank bank account and provided Espinoza with Detective Arias’ Bitcoin address.
surveillance to observe and record the transaction.
with smaller denominations in order to verify the authenticity of the flash roll.
a prima facie case of guilt against him.
or charges relating to such transaction.” See § 560.125(1), Fla. Stat. (2014).
Accordingly, the State charged Espinoza under the prior version of the statute.
Chapter 896, Florida’s Money Laundering Act.
days of rendition of the order to be reviewed.” Fla. R. App. P. 9.140(c)(3).
order granting the motion to dismiss the amended information).
interpretation is de novo. See Mendenhall v. State, 48 So. 3d 740, 747 (Fla. 2010).
835 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)).
should be granted sparingly” (citation omitted)).
from licensure under this chapter.
felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s.
775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
or monetary value whether or not negotiable.” § 560.103(29) (emphasis added).
country, or to or from this country.
bitcoin address in exchange for cash in U.S. dollars.
exchange, whether or not redeemable in currency.” §§ 560.103 (21), (29).
a medium of exchange in the country of issuance.
the application of section 560.125 to virtual currencies when the statute was enacted.
the term “currency.” They are not.
should avoid readings that would render part of a statute meaningless.” Koile v.
synonymous with “currency” would render section 560.103(21) meaningless.
person A, transmits it to person or entity B.
So. 2d 1, 4 (Fla. 1999))).
type money services businesses are registered as such with the Florida OFR.
Espinoza’s bitcoins-for-cash business is not.
“currency, monetary value, or payment instruments” under Florida law. Id. at 712.
“[b]ecause bitcoins are ‘monetary value,’ they are also ‘payment instruments’”).
https://bitcoin.org/en/getting-started (last visited Sept. 16, 2016)).
are used in Chapter 560 that would place bitcoins outside of the statute’s ambit.” Id.
4028182, at *2 (E.D.Tex. Aug. 6, 2013))).
“did not contemplate the possibility that bitcoins qualify as “monetary value.” Id.
Rule 3.190(c)(4) motion under the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Id. at 714.
transmitting business in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1960 (2012). Faiella, 39 F. Supp.
payment.” Id. (quoting Money, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.
register as a payment instrument seller and money transmitter under chapter 560.
entered in In re Petition for Declaratory Statement Moon, Inc., Case No. 59166 (Fla.
kiosk would then initiate a transfer of bitcoins from an address owned by Moon Id.
Once the PIN is redeemed, the money services business would then pay Moon. Id.
of transmitting same. In re Petition for Declaratory Statement Moon, Inc., Case No.
1026, 1027 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)).
Boler v. State, 678 So. 2d 319, 323 (Fla. 1996)).
February 6, 2014, in violation of s. 896.101(3) and s.
peace and dignity of the State of Florida.
currency” and became effective on July 1, 2017. See § 896.101(2)(f), Fla. Stat.
effect at the time of the transactions at issue here.
period ending February 1, 2014, in violation of s.
against the peace and dignity of the State of Florida.
an issue to be decided on a motion to dismiss under Rule 3.190(c)(4)”).
(quoting Paleveda, 745 So. 2d at 1027)).

References: § 560
 v. 
 § 560
 v.

 § 1960
 v. 
 § 896