Creator of online money Liberty Reserve gets 20 years in prison … Before the virtual currency Bitcoin there was Liberty Reserve — and its founder just got sentenced to 20 years in prison. Arthur Budovsky, 42, ran an online digital money business out of Costa Rica called Liberty Reserve. The U.S. government contended that the whole thing was just a massive, $6 billion money laundering operation. – CNN

Sentence by sentence, the US judiciary is creating its own version of the constitution.

It is one that forbids people from creating online marketplaces or even putting silver into coins and selling them.

Most recently, as we can see above, Arthur Budovsky, founder of Liberty Reserve just got 20 years in prison for allegedly running a money laundering operation.

Prior to Budovsky's sentencing, Ross Ulbricht, the founder of Sllk Road, received a life sentence for founding and running a "darknet" marketplace that allowed people to buy illegal items like drugs and guns. Ulbricht is appealing.

Before Budovksy and Ulbricht, there was US-based Bernard von NotHaus who invented the Liberty Dollar which contained actual silver, unlike current US coins.

NotHaus encouraged buyers to use the coins as money and the US government prosecuted him for trying to undermine US currency. He was sentenced to six months of home detention and three years of probation, which apparently was later reduced.

Let's not forget about Kim Dotcom in New Zealand. The US government has been trying to extradite him for years on charges of encouraging copyright infringement with his once extremely popular company Megaupload.

Dotcom remains un-extradited and even started a new company, Mega – though Dotcom is now fighting with Mega's management. He's also subject to rumors that he organized the Panama Papers leak – though that seems unlikely.

What ties all these cases together? Basically, the individuals involved have been attacked for what took place on platforms they provided.

This is surely a complex and dangerous area. It is one that goes to the heart of modern Western justice and especially US jurisprudence.

Modern justice increasingly holds some people responsible for crimes committed by others. The idea is that if you know that someone might be committing a crime, you may be as culpable as the person actually acting.

In all four cases mentioned above, the US government attacked entrepreneurs (mostly) for the activities of those who used their services.

This line of attack is dangerous because if you extend it, you end up in a position where both government and mainstream corporations can be attacked on the same grounds.

What about a car company that puts an extremely strong engine in an undersized car? Are company executives culpable for accidents that may occur?

What about someone who runs a bar and offers free or discount drinks? (Indeed, the bar-tender, and then presumably the owner, may be culpable in this modern era of precedent justice.)