To make matters worse, while Shrem was CEO he was simultaneously BitInstant’s compliance officer, responsible for ensuring that his company followed the law.
With respect: I know you're a professional at this, but I work with many startups who need named compliance officers for HIPAA or AML purposes, and it is the CEO virtually everywhere. This decision is generally made less out of hubris and more because a) the position has a very high ratio of requiredness to actual duties and b) legal advisors recommended that naming the CEO as opposed to a summer intern would suggest enthusiastic compliance.
Who gets tapped for this sort of thing in your world?
Oh, I didn't mean it was hubristic being the compliance officer! I meant shoveling all the BTC around while knowing he didn't have even a figleaf of deniability (eg blaming an internal miscommunication with someone else who was in charge of compliance). He had to know it was enormously risky.
Likely but it doesn't take a trained compliance officer to not do the things Shrem did choose to do.
Look I'm not against drugs (born & raised in Amsterdam, never used but understanding of it) and Silk Road was mostly a voluntary marketplace without victims that reduced violence and crime involved with drugs being sold at night illegally on every streetcorner instead of anonymously online. It's a product of a system that ignores research and examples (like my country) that legalized markets provide more oversight, opportunity for regulation, for consumer safety, usage-limits, child-free zones etc, than a completely illegal unregulated market. And all Shrem did was enable people to participate in this market (which a priori is not illegal, as it traded baseball caps and hamburgers, too, Shrem was agnostic about what the bitcoins were used for, and did not even sell them to Silk Road users, but to someone who resold them to Silk Road users).
So I'm not against Shrem. BUT, he broke laws. And he did it knowingly and willingly. All the emails released by the court show he sent emails telling this guy of whom he knew was selling on the SR, to use different email addresses so that he wouldn't have to ban him (as his cofounder didn't like it), limit bank deposits to X amount per time (so that he wouldn't have to file a report to Fincen) etc etc. And then he didn't report anything even though in the emails he spoke of the need to do these reports, and told his cofounder of this responsibility. He literally instructed a customer how to avoid and evade the law over email secretly from his co-founder, and then chose not to do the due diligence he's legally required to do in terms of reporting large orders, despite communicating he was aware of this duty.
My point is, had nothing to do with being under staffed or having too little money to hire competence. Every 15 year old could have not made these mistakes. (if that is even true, they raised quite a bit of money and generated significant revenues very quickly, too)
Still, got nothing against the guy. The whole case is rooted on a non-sense drug policy.
Impressive amount of hubris there.