Florida v. Espinoza
Florida Circuit Court
F-14-2923 (July 22, 2016)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
Miami Beach police detective Ricardo Arias worked with a United States Secret Service electronic-crimes task force that was investigating the purchase and sale of the cryptocurrency bitcoin in South Florida. As part of the investigation, Arias posed as a bitcoin buyer and initiated a bitcoin purchase from Michell Espinoza (defendant). During the first meeting between Espinoza and Arias, Espinoza said that he purchased bitcoin at 10 percent below market value and then sold it at 5 percent above market value to make a profit. Arias subsequently purchased bitcoin from Espinoza two more times. He then contacted Espinoza and said that he wanted to purchase $30,000 in bitcoin. When Arias and Espinoza met to complete that transaction, Arias told Espinoza that Arias was involved in selling stolen credit cards, and Arias produced a roll of $30,000 in counterfeit bills. Espinoza became suspicious of the money and told Arias that he would need to take the money to five different banks because he purchased the bitcoin from five different sellers. Espinoza never took possession of the money and was arrested. The State of Florida (plaintiff) charged Espinoza with money laundering and unlawfully engaging in an unlicensed money-services business as a money transmitter or payment-instrument seller. Espinoza moved to dismiss the charges.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Pooler, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.