The case of Roger Ver, often referred to as "Bitcoin Jesus," continues to unfold, now spotlighting U.S. prosecutor Matthew J. Kluge for his role in what some are calling an "ill-fated prosecution." Ver's legal team recently filed motions to dismiss the indictment, challenging the constitutionality of the "exit tax" at the heart of the charges. Renowned economist and stockbroker Peter Schiff has weighed in, calling the exit tax "an unapportioned direct tax" and supporting Ver’s motion to dismiss as justified under constitutional grounds.
The Unconstitutional "Exit Tax" and Roger Ver's Compliance
Roger Ver's charges include allegations of unpaid taxes related to Bitcoin sales and underreporting the value of businesses when he renounced his U.S. citizenship in 2014. However, Ver’s legal team argues that the exit tax—a levy on unrealized capital gains imposed on expatriates—is unconstitutional. Schiff notes that a victory for Ver could force the government to reconsider its tax policies, potentially averting a "flood of expatriations."
What is even more notable is that in spite of the law's questionable constitutional status, Roger Ver did everything possible to comply with it. Ver sought professional advice, engaged accountants and attorneys, and disclosed his financial dealings to ensure compliance. This was no attempt to circumvent the law—it was a good-faith effort to adhere to what were, at the time, vague and inconsistent tax guidelines for digital assets.
False Claims About Hiding Bitcoin Sales in 2017
Matthew Kluge’s indictment goes even further, alleging that Roger Ver hid his 2017 Bitcoin sales from his accountants, supposedly to evade taxes. However, this claim falls apart under scrutiny. Roger Ver’s lawyers have produced email evidence directly contradicting this assertion. In these communications, Ver explicitly informed his accountants of the Bitcoin sales. The accountants, in turn, advised him that the transactions were not taxable or reportable under existing laws at the time.
This revelation makes Kluge’s accusation not just baseless, but demonstrably false. How can a prosecutor justify such charges when clear evidence proves otherwise? Critics argue this isn’t just poor judgment—it’s deliberate misrepresentation to paint Ver as a bad actor.
Misconduct Allegations Compound the Case
Kluge’s prosecution faces further scrutiny following allegations of misconduct during Ver’s arrest and extradition process. Ver’s legal team accuses Kluge of misleading Spanish authorities to secure Ver’s detention, a claim that, if proven true, could have severe professional consequences. By allegedly presenting incomplete and false information, Kluge risks not only the collapse of the case but also his reputation and career.
These allegations, combined with constitutional challenges, paint a troubling picture. Critics argue that targeting a high-profile figure like Ver—a libertarian and vocal critic of government overreach—reflects a selective enforcement strategy designed to make an example of dissenters.
Timing and Retaliatory Motives
Adding to the controversy is the timing of Ver’s arrest. Just weeks before his detention in Spain, Ver released his book, Hijacking Bitcoin, which criticizes government attempts to co-opt decentralized currencies. The arrest, which disrupted Ver’s planned international book tour, raises questions about whether the prosecution’s motives are truly about tax compliance or an effort to silence a prominent critic of government financial policies.
Implications for the Justice System
The Ver case has brought renewed focus to prosecutorial ethics and the weaponization of laws. Critics argue that Kluge’s actions undermine public trust in the justice system, particularly when combined with allegations of misleading authorities and selective prosecution. The case could set a dangerous precedent, where dissenting voices are targeted through questionable legal means.
With motions to dismiss pending and growing public backlash, the stakes for Kluge have never been higher. His pursuit of Ver appears increasingly risky, not only for its legal weaknesses but also for the broader implications of the government’s actions.
A Landmark Case in the Making
Roger Ver’s case could become a landmark in addressing the legality of the exit tax and the broader regulatory environment for digital assets. At the same time, it serves as a critical moment for holding prosecutors accountable for overreach and misconduct.
As Peter Schiff aptly noted, Ver’s fight is not just his own—it’s a fight that could reshape tax policy and ensure that justice remains rooted in constitutional principles. For Kluge, however, the case poses a stark question: why risk everything on a law that legal experts and public opinion increasingly deem indefensible?
This is no longer just a case about Bitcoin or taxes—it’s about accountability, constitutional rights, and ensuring that justice is not weaponized against those who dare to dissent. Roger Ver’s story underscores the importance of safeguarding these principles for everyone.
