7 ms·

The statute of limitation for wire fraud is 5 years. How did he get charged under that statute when he stole funds from Silk Road in 2012? Did they charge him f

by ucha 3y ago

The statute of limitation for wire fraud is 5 years. How did he get charged under that statute when he stole funds from Silk Road in 2012? Did they charge him for converting BCH into BTC in 2017? I tried to look up the case but couldn't find anything that shed a light on that.

Waterluvian 3y ago
I’ve wondered about how crimes can seemingly be an instantaneous event with no duration, or can be ongoing for a while. Crime as an event. Crime as a state. ;) Is it perhaps that by continuing to act on the proceeds from crime, the individual(s) are prolonging or tacking on additional crimes?
epgui 3y ago
Probably because of discoverability or something like that?
aaronmdjones 3y ago
> The statute of limitation for wire fraud is 5 years. How did he get charged under that statute when he stole funds from Silk Road in 2012? This is a very simplistic view and this mistake is made a lot. There are several reasons why the statute of limitations could either be longer than 5 years or not yet expired even though it is 5 years: - Tolling. This is when the suspect exits your jurisdiction, preventing you from apprehending them. If the statute of limitations really is 5 years, and you leave the country 4 years after the act; even if you stay abroad for a year, or 5 years, or 20 years, the clock only resumes when you return. You can still be charged 24 years after committing the offense. - Furtherance. Put simply, if you continue to engage in the activity, the statute of limitations is reset. For example, this article describes his repeated moving of the assets after the initial theft in order to avoid detection. - Special Circumstances. In this case, there are exceptions that mean that the statute of limitations is not actually 5 years. It's not clear which of these apply. I would definitely bet on option #2. If he spent any time outside of the country, also apply option #1. If any of the special circumstances defined in the law apply, also apply option #3.
- pmarreck 3y ago
  So basically if he had simply sat on the wallet keys for 5 years and 1 day, he’d be home free? If so, that is even more tragic than his inability to get anyone to wet his whistle even with all that cash >..<
  - aaronmdjones 3y ago
    If option #3 doesn't apply, then yeah, if he'd stayed still and not touched it for 5 years, he'd (probably) be fine. IANAL.
  - renewiltord 3y ago
    Presumably if he had then moved the keys, he's just committed a crime again, so we're back in business. If he'd sat on the keys forever, he would never be prosecuted.
  - paulpauper 3y ago
    Impossible to know. Unless the feds deny there is an investigation, it's always possible that an investigation is ongoing. It's possible to extend the statute of limitations with sealed indictment under what is called a John Doe defendant. This loophole was employed in the DB Cooper case.
- ucha 3y ago
  Thanks for explaining this! It seemed to me that option #1 only applied if you were a fugitive and your whereabouts were unknown, not when you simply leave the state or country. As to furtherance, I wonder how precise the definition of it is; is using proceeds of a crime, furtherance of a crime? Is obfuscating a crime, furtherance of a crime? Edit: This answers most of my questions and the answer seems to be "it's complicated" https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RL31253.pdf https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RL31253.pdf
  - aaronmdjones 3y ago
    In regards to whether simply leaving the jurisdiction is grounds for tolling the statute of limitations, see 18 USC 3290, which is a one-sentence law reading: No statute of limitations shall extend to any person fleeing from justice It can be reasonably argued that leaving the country after having committed the offense is fleeing from justice. I'm not aware of any supreme court ruling on the matter though, and I am not a lawyer. Edit: Thanks for the link!
from 3y ago
Plea hearing is fun reading: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.588939/gov.uscourts.nysd.588939.14.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.58... > So, Mr. Zhong, the statute of limitations for the crime you're charged with in the information is five years. Accordingly, you could argue that the time to prosecute you for this crime has passed, and that the crime is now time barred; you can no longer be prosecuted. Have you discussed this with Mr. Bachner? > THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor. > THE COURT: And is it true that you agree to waive any statute of limitations defense you might have with respect to this charge in the information? > THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor. For some reason this bug was not as sophisticated as I thought it was: > THE DEFENDANT: ...In September of 2012, after using the site just once or twice, I decided I no longer wanted to buy anything else from Silk Road and decided to withdraw my bitcoin from the website. While doing so, I accidentally double-clicked the withdraw button and was shocked to discover that it resulted in allowing me to withdraw double the amount of bitcoin I had deposited His sentencing submission is also interesting: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.588939/gov.uscourts.nysd.588939.30.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.58... > After Jimmy took the Bitcoin from Silk Road, Ross Ulbricht contacted Jimmy over the Silk Road messaging service and asked him to explain how he accessed the Bitcoin. After Jimmy told him what he did, Ulbricht never asked Jimmy to return the coins. Rather, he thanked Jimmy for his candor and sent him, unsolicited, additional Bitcoin. Silk Road’s response to Jimmy’s conduct is hardly the response of a victim. > The Government notes that Jimmy waited around four months from the date of the search to turn over control of the Bitcoin to the Government > Although the Government had seized the physical device needed to control most of the Bitcoin, the Government had no way to use that device to control the Bitcoin without Mr. Zhong’s cooperation. Jimmy gave the Government, with no promise of anything in return, the keys and tools needed to take control of billions of dollars’ worth of Bitcoin—control that the Government would not have been able to gain without Jimmy’s cooperation Psychological report: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.588939/gov.uscourts.nysd.588939.30.1.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.58... > He recalled converting some of his Bitcoin into $700,000 in cash. He stated he did this so that he would have a “case full of money like in the movies.” He hoped the visual appeal of the cash would impress a female into having sexual relations with him. He stated his plan did not work. Government was fairer than usual in their sentencing submission, only asked for 24 months. Honestly this whole story just makes me kind of sad. Also makes me wonder why he even agreed to give up the coins.

by ucha 3y ago

Waterluvian 3y ago

I’ve wondered about how crimes can seemingly be an instantaneous event with no duration, or can be ongoing for a while. Crime as an event. Crime as a state. ;) Is it perhaps that by continuing to act on the proceeds from crime, the individual(s) are prolonging or tacking on additional crimes?

epgui 3y ago

Probably because of discoverability or something like that?

aaronmdjones 3y ago

> The statute of limitation for wire fraud is 5 years. How did he get charged under that statute when he stole funds from Silk Road in 2012? This is a very simplistic view and this mistake is made a lot. There are several reasons why the statute of limitations could either be longer than 5 years or not yet expired even though it is 5 years: - Tolling. This is when the suspect exits your jurisdiction, preventing you from apprehending them. If the statute of limitations really is 5 years, and you leave the country 4 years after the act; even if you stay abroad for a year, or 5 years, or 20 years, the clock only resumes when you return. You can still be charged 24 years after committing the offense. - Furtherance. Put simply, if you continue to engage in the activity, the statute of limitations is reset. For example, this article describes his repeated moving of the assets after the initial theft in order to avoid detection. - Special Circumstances. In this case, there are exceptions that mean that the statute of limitations is not actually 5 years. It's not clear which of these apply. I would definitely bet on option #2. If he spent any time outside of the country, also apply option #1. If any of the special circumstances defined in the law apply, also apply option #3.

pmarreck 3y ago
So basically if he had simply sat on the wallet keys for 5 years and 1 day, he’d be home free? If so, that is even more tragic than his inability to get anyone to wet his whistle even with all that cash >..<
- aaronmdjones 3y ago
  If option #3 doesn't apply, then yeah, if he'd stayed still and not touched it for 5 years, he'd (probably) be fine. IANAL.
- renewiltord 3y ago
  Presumably if he had then moved the keys, he's just committed a crime again, so we're back in business. If he'd sat on the keys forever, he would never be prosecuted.
- paulpauper 3y ago
  Impossible to know. Unless the feds deny there is an investigation, it's always possible that an investigation is ongoing. It's possible to extend the statute of limitations with sealed indictment under what is called a John Doe defendant. This loophole was employed in the DB Cooper case.
ucha 3y ago
Thanks for explaining this! It seemed to me that option #1 only applied if you were a fugitive and your whereabouts were unknown, not when you simply leave the state or country. As to furtherance, I wonder how precise the definition of it is; is using proceeds of a crime, furtherance of a crime? Is obfuscating a crime, furtherance of a crime? Edit: This answers most of my questions and the answer seems to be "it's complicated" https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RL31253.pdf https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RL31253.pdf
- aaronmdjones 3y ago
  In regards to whether simply leaving the jurisdiction is grounds for tolling the statute of limitations, see 18 USC 3290, which is a one-sentence law reading: No statute of limitations shall extend to any person fleeing from justice It can be reasonably argued that leaving the country after having committed the offense is fleeing from justice. I'm not aware of any supreme court ruling on the matter though, and I am not a lawyer. Edit: Thanks for the link!

from 3y ago

Plea hearing is fun reading: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.588939/gov.uscourts.nysd.588939.14.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.58... > So, Mr. Zhong, the statute of limitations for the crime you're charged with in the information is five years. Accordingly, you could argue that the time to prosecute you for this crime has passed, and that the crime is now time barred; you can no longer be prosecuted. Have you discussed this with Mr. Bachner? > THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor. > THE COURT: And is it true that you agree to waive any statute of limitations defense you might have with respect to this charge in the information? > THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor. For some reason this bug was not as sophisticated as I thought it was: > THE DEFENDANT: ...In September of 2012, after using the site just once or twice, I decided I no longer wanted to buy anything else from Silk Road and decided to withdraw my bitcoin from the website. While doing so, I accidentally double-clicked the withdraw button and was shocked to discover that it resulted in allowing me to withdraw double the amount of bitcoin I had deposited His sentencing submission is also interesting: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.588939/gov.uscourts.nysd.588939.30.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.58... > After Jimmy took the Bitcoin from Silk Road, Ross Ulbricht contacted Jimmy over the Silk Road messaging service and asked him to explain how he accessed the Bitcoin. After Jimmy told him what he did, Ulbricht never asked Jimmy to return the coins. Rather, he thanked Jimmy for his candor and sent him, unsolicited, additional Bitcoin. Silk Road’s response to Jimmy’s conduct is hardly the response of a victim. > The Government notes that Jimmy waited around four months from the date of the search to turn over control of the Bitcoin to the Government > Although the Government had seized the physical device needed to control most of the Bitcoin, the Government had no way to use that device to control the Bitcoin without Mr. Zhong’s cooperation. Jimmy gave the Government, with no promise of anything in return, the keys and tools needed to take control of billions of dollars’ worth of Bitcoin—control that the Government would not have been able to gain without Jimmy’s cooperation Psychological report: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.588939/gov.uscourts.nysd.588939.30.1.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.58... > He recalled converting some of his Bitcoin into $700,000 in cash. He stated he did this so that he would have a “case full of money like in the movies.” He hoped the visual appeal of the cash would impress a female into having sexual relations with him. He stated his plan did not work. Government was fairer than usual in their sentencing submission, only asked for 24 months. Honestly this whole story just makes me kind of sad. Also makes me wonder why he even agreed to give up the coins.