Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Alleged Silk Road drug kingpin denies charges

sfgate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 63 posts

Re: Alleged Silk Road drug kingpin denies charges

#31

Post by redthrowaway »

nooneelse wrote: post #22
ChuckMcM wrote: post #12

"Goodnight Wesley, I'll probably convict you in the morning." So the whole extortion / murder-for-hire angle is interesting. I'm wondering how they jump over the reasonable doubt hurdle with anonymous accounts. That said, someone got access to the 26K+ bitcoins that SR "had" so if nothing else the cops seized and shut down the correct hardware. I'm not sure how to feel about Ross, idealistic dreamer or drug dealer in…

So perhaps someone should enable a layer of plausible deniability in the form of a program which makes it look like your machine(s) has been compromised and controlled for a long time now.

You could just buy a Trojan and infect yourself with it, setting the C&C to send out email spam or something similarly (relatively) innocuous.

Still, if you're at the point where they have your laptop and have you fingered, the "plausible" aspect of plausible deniability is likely diminished.

Re: Alleged Silk Road drug kingpin denies charges

#32

Post by m0nastic »

One thing I'm curious about (but haven't seen mentioned yet), is whether the bitcoins that were seized were Ulbrichts or "DPR's". That might seem like a silly distinction (as obviously the state is arguing that Ulbrict is DPR), but I can imagine a case where it's actually important.

i.e.: If the FBI identified the bitcoins as part of their efforts investigating DPR, for Ulbrict to claim ownership of them might actually be bad for his defense. On the other hand, if they were seized when he was apprehended (presumably they were stored on his laptop), than I think it becomes much less problematic for him to assert that they are his.

Re: Alleged Silk Road drug kingpin denies charges

#33

Post by rthomas6 »

fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #3

>Ulbricht did not enter a plea. But his public defender,... Looks like the Federales did seize his assets. He may be about to have a bad time.

Well, I somehow doubt that attorneys take payment in bitcoins, so they didn't have to find or seize the bitcoins. People forget that they're all publicly stored in the blockchain, so everyone would have a reasonable suspicion which bitcoin addresses are used for Silk Road. If Mr. Ulbricht decided to liquidate some of those assets into a bank account, even if he used one of those "launderer" services, it would be clear that a certain amount left that bitcoin address, and somehow that exact amount in dollars ended up in the account. Not exactly good for defending your innocence.

Re: Alleged Silk Road drug kingpin denies charges

#34

Post by mistercow »

tptacek wrote: post #17
MichaelGG wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You can't use the proceeds of crime to fund your defense. Alleged crime. I thought the US had some presumption of innocence or something.

The assets you presume him to have are the proceeds of a massive online narcotics market. Or is there some other source of income you're saying were seized?

So in this case he probably is DPR and probably is guilty of at least most of what he's accused of. But because they don't have to prove guilt before seizing assets, they could easily just grab some random person, say "You ran this online drug ring, so we're seizing all of your assets" and then leave you with a public defender.

And that's pretty messed up. It's also messed up that being stuck with a public defender is messed up, but that's another issue. The concept of assuming guilt before trial with respect to your finances is obviously a violation of the spirit - if not the actual letter - of the Fifth Amendment.

Re: Alleged Silk Road drug kingpin denies charges

#35

Post by dragonwriter »

mikeryan wrote: post #24
jpmattia wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can't use the proceeds of crime to fund your defense. And how is it determined (beyond a reasonable doubt, with a vigorous defense) that you committed a crime to yield those proceeds?

Tax returns - or the lack thereof. There's almost no way in the US to make more than about 10k without it being traceable. Also I can totally be wrong about this its one of those "I' think I heard this a few times" but I think this is one of those things where the burden of proof ends up more on the side of the accused then on the gov't.

The burden of proof is on the government.

The thing is, proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not mathematical/logical proof, it's (as I recall the jury instructions I've seen on this) basically proof to a degree that a reasonably diligent person would use in their most important business dealings.

Multiple sources of evidence that point in the same direction, even when there are theoretically possible innocent explanations for all them, can still constitute "proof beyond a reasonable doubt", which is not "proof beyond any doubt".

Re: Alleged Silk Road drug kingpin denies charges

#36

Post by mistercow »

wozniacki wrote: post #30
noir_lord wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't use the proceeds of crime to fund your defense. If he can't show income then he gets a public defender. Also this is a federal defender and my understanding (I'm a Brit watching from afar) is they are like our QC's (Queens Counsel - essentially very good and experienced legal professionals) rather than the stereotypical "plead to everything and go to lunch" public defenders.

Could you prepay your attorney(s) / legal team in the form of retainers like they (seem to) do in the television show "The Wire"? The cost of any future trial could be anticipated ahead of time and paid upfront by the perpetrating party. Right? That way there is no burden on the accused, to prove how the cost of the trial will be borne. Right? The state (DA) must know that there is certainly no way "Stringer Bell" or…

I think that is correct. If so, it's also screwed up because it actually favors the guilty. An innocent person who believes in the justice system would think that they have no reason to retain a lawyer in advance. A smart criminal would do so as an obvious precaution.

Re: Alleged Silk Road drug kingpin denies charges

#37

Post by tptacek »

revelation wrote: post #23
tptacek wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The assets you presume him to have are the proceeds of a massive online narcotics market. Or is there some other source of income you're saying were seized?

Of course the source of the funds may be obvious. That doesn't mean we should short out the usual due process, the same reason we have the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine.

There is a well-established due process scheme for seizing assets. It has a lower standard of proof because it establishes only that a crime took place and that an asset is linked to the crime, without establishing culpability.

Re: Alleged Silk Road drug kingpin denies charges

#38

Post by mistercow »

noir_lord wrote: post #7
fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #3

>Ulbricht did not enter a plea. But his public defender,... Looks like the Federales did seize his assets. He may be about to have a bad time.

You can't use the proceeds of crime to fund your defense. If he can't show income then he gets a public defender. Also this is a federal defender and my understanding (I'm a Brit watching from afar) is they are like our QC's (Queens Counsel - essentially very good and experienced legal professionals) rather than the stereotypical "plead to everything and go to lunch" public defenders.

>You can't use the proceeds of crime to fund your defense.

Sidestepping the due process issue for a moment, is that even a meaningful concept? Money is fungible. If you make $5,000 earned from your day job, and $5,000 from selling drugs, and you spend $5,000 on a car, is the money you have left drug money or honest money?

Re: Alleged Silk Road drug kingpin denies charges

#39

Post by jpmattia »

mikeryan wrote: post #24
jpmattia wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can't use the proceeds of crime to fund your defense. And how is it determined (beyond a reasonable doubt, with a vigorous defense) that you committed a crime to yield those proceeds?

Tax returns - or the lack thereof. There's almost no way in the US to make more than about 10k without it being traceable. Also I can totally be wrong about this its one of those "I' think I heard this a few times" but I think this is one of those things where the burden of proof ends up more on the side of the accused then on the gov't.

> Tax returns - or the lack thereof.

And how is it determined (beyond a reasonable doubt, with a vigorous defense) whether or not you committed the crime of tax evasion?

Re: Alleged Silk Road drug kingpin denies charges

#40

Post by MichaelGG »

tptacek wrote: post #37
revelation wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course the source of the funds may be obvious. That doesn't mean we should short out the usual due process, the same reason we have the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine.

There is a well-established due process scheme for seizing assets. It has a lower standard of proof because it establishes only that a crime took place and that an asset is linked to the crime, without establishing culpability.

I'm guessing "well-established due process" is the part the rest of HN takes objection to.

You seem pretty with it and level-headed, so it seems like we just have different priors.

Post reply on HN