71–80 of 243 posts
> But by the time he was in college, he converted some of his digital wealth into $700,000 in cash. He wanted to have a “case full of money like in the movies,” Mr. Zhong said, according to a psychological assessment filed with the court. “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.” Hilarious.
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.
> 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.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.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.
What is the crime he committed, exactly? Wasn't he simply using a "feature" of Silk Road, ie. if you double-click "withdraw" it prints you money?
Say it with me: "Bitcoin is not, and never was, anonymous."
I know right?!? The WHOLE PREMISE of it was that it is an OPEN LEDGER...! I'm not sure how this persistent myth of it being a way to secretly make payments got around and stuck so well... maybe the "crypto" in the name?
Say it with me: "Bitcoin is not, and never was, anonymous."
But used as intended (not via a KYC exchange) it is pseudonymous, right?
This story from about a year ago also showed how that worked with investigators tracing it link by link:
https://www.wired.com/story/tracers-in-the-dark-welcome-to-v...
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.
> 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 f…
could be this one . maybe someone can do FOIA on the case
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is that helpful? Get Bitcoin from crime Wash into monero? Pray the tumbler is legit? Wash back into Bitcoin Now what? Bitcoins from tumblers are suspect everywhere with kyc requirements. Sell off books to a Russian oligarch or North Korea I guess?
Going back to Bitcoin is unnecessary but possible. You go from Monero to cash, wire transfer, or gift cards through a variety of unlicensed conversion services that advertise themselves all over the Internet.
Those are probably run by the FBI. It seems like a no brained for the government to try to run such services given the wealth of information they would provide.
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.
Plea hearing is fun reading: 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 DEFENDAN…
Say it with me: "Bitcoin is not, and never was, anonymous."