I want to remind international readers that confessions by a defendant in an American often have little to do with truth, but with calculated odds. One should not assume that just because a defendant "admits" to having done any particular act, that they actually did so. While the confession provides some evidence that the defendant is guilty of something (to the extent that this makes them more likely to be found guilty by a jury of a particular set of charges) the exact details of a confession should be trusted less than the details that result from a full trial.
The confession is a charade, usually coordinated in advance with the prosecution. Almost never is the confession made because the defendant suddenly realizes that wrongness of their actions, and simply wants to avoid burdening everyone with the effort of a lengthy trial. Instead, the defendant is threatened with a terrible punishment, and told that unless they cooperate the chances are high (regardless of their actual guilt) that this punishment will occur. They are offered (or offer on their own) a "plea bargain", where if they confess to a subset of the crimes with which they are charged, they can willingly accept a smaller (though often substantial) punishment.
The contents of the admission are a negotiation between the defendant and the prosecutor. If the prosecutor demands that you confess to being a witch, and that if you don't confess to being a witch there is a high likelihood that you will spend the rest of your life in jail being raped by unpleasant men, you don't quibble about whether or not you are actually a witch. You weigh the chances of a potentially unjust conviction with a horrible outcome against the chances that your lawyer will convince a jury that the charges are false, and if the odds are against you, you confess to being a witch in all the detail the prosecutor requests.
The harsher the punishment the defendant willingly accepts in the "plea bargain", the more likely the admission was made under the duress of an even more severe punishment. The accuracy of the details of the confession are equivalent to a confession under torture. In torture, the punishment begins and in agony you are willing to confess to anything in hope that the punishment will stop. In the plea bargaining system, you are threatened with a terrible punishment and confess to anything in hopes that the punishment will not start. In neither case should the details of the confession be treated as true.
So while I presume this agent did lots of bad things, and probably stole the bitcoins in question, realize that the details of the admission are a just a plausible story written by someone wielding great power, signed under duress by a defendant justifiably scared of this power. In the absence of outside evidence, the exact details should no more be treated as "true" than the dying confessions of a man broken on the wheel.
The confession is a charade, usually coordinated in advance with the prosecution. Almost never is the confession made because the defendant suddenly realizes that wrongness of their actions, and simply wants to avoid burdening everyone with the effort of a lengthy trial. Instead, the defendant is threatened with a terrible punishment, and told that unless they cooperate the chances are high (regardless of their actual guilt) that this punishment will occur. They are offered (or offer on their own) a "plea bargain", where if they confess to a subset of the crimes with which they are charged, they can willingly accept a smaller (though often substantial) punishment.
The contents of the admission are a negotiation between the defendant and the prosecutor. If the prosecutor demands that you confess to being a witch, and that if you don't confess to being a witch there is a high likelihood that you will spend the rest of your life in jail being raped by unpleasant men, you don't quibble about whether or not you are actually a witch. You weigh the chances of a potentially unjust conviction with a horrible outcome against the chances that your lawyer will convince a jury that the charges are false, and if the odds are against you, you confess to being a witch in all the detail the prosecutor requests.
The harsher the punishment the defendant willingly accepts in the "plea bargain", the more likely the admission was made under the duress of an even more severe punishment. The accuracy of the details of the confession are equivalent to a confession under torture. In torture, the punishment begins and in agony you are willing to confess to anything in hope that the punishment will stop. In the plea bargaining system, you are threatened with a terrible punishment and confess to anything in hopes that the punishment will not start. In neither case should the details of the confession be treated as true.
So while I presume this agent did lots of bad things, and probably stole the bitcoins in question, realize that the details of the admission are a just a plausible story written by someone wielding great power, signed under duress by a defendant justifiably scared of this power. In the absence of outside evidence, the exact details should no more be treated as "true" than the dying confessions of a man broken on the wheel.