Virtual currency. Photo: ShutterstockCourt Rules Bitcoin Qualifies as Money in Case of First Impression
The appellate court's opinion could open the door for cracking down on unregulated Bitcoin trading.
January 31, 2019 at 02:32 PM
2 minute read
Florida's Third District Court of Appeal Wednesday ruled Bitcoin qualifies as money in a case that turned on whether digital currency is driving financial crime.
The appellate court's opinion reverses Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Teresa Pooler's 2016 finding that digital or cryptocurrency could not be considered money under Florida law. The case in question concerned Miami Beach resident Michell Espinoza, who was charged with two counts of money laundering and acting as an unauthorized money transmitter operating through digital currency-trading website, LocalBitcoins.com.
|
Related story: Financial Crime Case May Hinge on Whether Bitcoin Is Money
Pooler's ruling had dismissed the charges against Espinoza. However, that reprieve might be short-lived in light of the appellate court's ruling. Although the district court opinion conceded Bitcoin “does not expressly fall under the definition of 'currency'” found in the Florida Statues, it held cryptocurrency does constitute a “payment instrument.”
“Included in the definition of a payment instrument is 'monetary value,' which is defined as 'a medium of exchange, whether or not redeemable in currency,'” the court wrote. “Similarly, Bitcoin and bitcoins function as a 'medium of exchange.' … Any assertion that 'monetary value is synonymous with 'currency' overlooks the express language contained in Section 560.103(21),which states that monetary value is 'a medium of exchange, whether or not redeemable in currency.'”
The Third DCA then remanded Espinoza's case for further proceedings. Its ruling in the case of first impression might pave the way for regulation of cryptocurrency transfers in Florida, as federal agencies and state banking regulators weigh whether Bitcoin trading constitutes money transmission.
Frank Prieto, Espinoza's attorney, did not respond to requests for comment. The Florida Attorney General's office also did not respond by press time.
|
Read the ruling:
|
Related stories:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Second Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute read
'They Got All Bent Out of Shape:' Parkland Lawyers Clash With Each Other
Courts of Appeal Conflicted Over Rule 1.442(c)(3) When Claims for Damages Involve a Husband and Wife
Families Settle Court Battle Over Who Owns Parkland Killer's Name, Likeness
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Trying a Case for Abu Ghraib Detainees Two Decades After Abuse
- 2The Distribution of Dangerous Products Via Online Marketplaces
- 3The Products Liability Case Against Tianeptine: The Deadly ‘Dietary Supplement’ Found at Your Local Store
- 4The Evolving Landscape of Joint and Several Liability in Pa.: A Post-'Spencer' Analysis
- 5A Deep Dive Into the Product-Line Exception in Pennsylvania
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
