Watch from 16:20 - 17:30. The lawyer admits that the "victim" was informed that the BTC would be used to purchase stolen credit cards. He should only have met in public to sell the BTC for his own security and he should never have sold the BTC once he realized it would be used for stolen credit cards. He should have immediately walked away. If he was scared for his life because he met in a private hotel (dumb) than he should have made some excuse that he needed to run down to his car to get the hardware/paper/yubikey to complete the transaction allowing him to flee the situation. Whether or not he intended originally to help purchase the cards doesn't justify that he still made the poor choice of going through with the transaction afterwards.

I don't care if you are a libertarian or anarchist... assisting people acquire stolen property is unethical. This being said I also consider that Homeland Security committed theft against Burt regardless of what laws they hide behind to justify their actions.

Why are you conflating the two when they are clearly distinct? There is a world of difference between knowingly assisting someone to acquire stolen property and exchanging funds without knowing. The end results may be the same but you are not culpable for that crime.

Firstly , if you are selling  BTC and the buyer unnecessarily gives up information that could make you liable for participating in a crime they are either undercover or an idiot(in which case they are sloppy and likely to implicate you by accident). Either way you shouldn't deal with these clients as they are extremely dangerous regardless of how you feel about the ethics in assisting people buy stolen credit cards.

Personally , I think its good advice to simply be more ethical and avoid people of questionable behavior altogether because:

1) They may implicate you by association in their lies/crimes
2) There low character will make it more probably they will cheat or scam you in the future
3) Many grifts are predicated on involving the victim in a crime
4) We should ostracize scumbags to not incentivize this behavior

Stay away from murderers, thieves, liars, and police in general and you will be much safer.

In a sense it is, not in that exact words and there is some leeway in terms of making the required effort reasonable. For most people that's not complicated to understand even if they can't understand the law text in written form but in common sense.
I don't expect that of you, any bitcoiner or any "free market" capitalist for that matter: So YES, you are responsible to verify the source of the money. And since you'll probably get red faced about it: Yes it's not the same thing as due process, and it's still the law and there is nothing you can do about it. Sweet, libertarian tears!

You don't get that it's against the law not to report certain kind of financial transactions on it's own. The intent of the transaction is irrelevant, and you get due process for that!
You ask: So what kind of financial transactions do you have to report? Well you should figure that out before making a business out of it.
Some people call that tyranny, some call it compromise.
I laugh.

Im pretty sure only USA has soo fucking killing rules to everything that they wanna you to do ,that you can do ,can i walk? can i dream? For any here makes no sense government takes such ammount just because he sold btc and hasnt a license for it,soo how did they find he trading btc ,the money in and out were too much ... soo you risked too much you should had opened a license and wont would lost those all btc.

Bitcoiners need to realize that transacting on a transparent blockchain is dumb, and migrate to true private and anonymous cryptocurrency. Pick your favorite. I prefer Monero.

This.
You will never be sure about with whom you deal with.
It looks like police is just trying to make some extra money by seizing campaigns.

Sorry Burt for your loss.
And lmao, from where did preet bharara and his ugly wife come into the scene?

Also,what will happen to these coins? Will the also get auctioned like the silkroad one's?

If the CFTC says that Bitcoin is a commodity (and hence personal property like gold), there should be no discussion of money laundering, as it is not an exchange of money in the first place. The analogy his lawyer gives of selling a car is a good example: If a guy shows up with cash to buy your car and says "I'm planning to rob a bank with this baby," do you have a legal obligation to not sell it?

You're forgetting that EVERYONE breaks at least 2 laws every day. All they need is a reason to look at you and they've got you.
Regulation nation, my friend.