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

Feds arrest couple, seize $3.6B in hacked Bitcoin funds

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 901 posts

Re: Feds arrest couple, seize $3.6B in hacked Bitcoin funds

#391

Post by sdenton4 »

tptacek wrote: post #336
tnorthcutt wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What portion of those convictions are plea bargains? This article says 97%: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/prisons-are-packed-bec... Why are people so eager to confess their guilt instead of challenging the government to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of a unanimous jury? The answer is simple and stark: They’re being coerced.

This is a pretty silly argument. I'm not opining on whether or not prosecutions are coercive; I'm certain they are. But a lower conviction rate would be a bad thing: it would mean the DOJ was bringing more cases they weren't certain they would win, and even exoneration comes with immense costs to the accused.

The argument around plea bargains is pretty simple. You have someone over a barrel: "Take the deal and go to prison for two or five years, or take a risk on a trial where you'll be put away for life. And btw, our conviction rate is 99.96%."

You'd be crazy not to take the deal, even if you're innocent. Thus, the conviction rate doesn't actually tell us much about how strong the federal cases actually are.

Re: Feds arrest couple, seize $3.6B in hacked Bitcoin funds

#392

Post by lordnacho »

mardifoufs wrote: post #355
lordnacho wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's saying that the law presumes innocence until proven guilty. They don't throw you in jail or take your money until the legal process reaches a judgement, and this is pretty normal and uncontroversial. But you don't have to keep going for drinks with a person who's just been arrested and let out on bail, you can make up your own opinion as you feel. You can say bad things about him before the judge does, you can d…

But you are not going by any other evidence than what the prosecution is showing here. Unless you have an insider perspective or were close enough to those involved, you don't really have anything to go by in judging their guilt than what the prosecution wants to show (and they will obviously be extremely biaised, that's the point!). So by de facto believing the prosecution, you aren't really doing anything else than…

> But you are not going by any other evidence than what the prosecution is showing here.

I haven't mentioned either the prosecution or the defense.

The defense makes noises too, and you are welcome to make your own mix of whatever you like.

But to repeat the point, you are under no obligation, it is the official system that is.

Re: Feds arrest couple, seize $3.6B in hacked Bitcoin funds

#393

Post by sharken »

vmception wrote: post #326
AlexanderTheGr8 wrote: post #312

> One overlooked detail in the Razzlekahn arrest. Almost all the money went through AlphaBay, using it as a mixer. The feds were able to see through this because they seized AlphaBay. Its amazing how, even years after, darknet market seizures pay dividends to the feds. Another fascinating detail. Source: https://twitter.com/ncweaver/status/1491118233973571585

Why do they call it Razzlekahn? I was just watching her tiktok account, pure cringe.

Razzle looks like a female version of the male rapper Rahzel, who is also from New York.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahzel

And Khan is from Genghis Khan, as mentioned here:

https://www.lyrics.com/sub-artist/Razzlekhan/28366

But this is all just a guess.

Re: Feds arrest couple, seize $3.6B in hacked Bitcoin funds

#394

Post by aeturnum »

smnrchrds wrote: post #342
mardifoufs wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a reason why the criminal justice system operates like that though. The system has been designed like that because it turned that it is a very good idea not to go on witch hunts or to assume guilt if you want a functional society. I'm not defending the person involved here, but it's important to remember that the presumption of innocence isn't just an abstract legal concept instead of a very important part of…

Do you think it is wrong for a person to believe OJ was guilty of the murder he was accused of? If a person decides to keep their distance from their new neighbour OJ and not treat them with neighbourly kindness and open arms because of that murder, would you admonish them for treating OJ differently for something he was never found guilty of in the court of law?

It's not wrong for a person to believe anything and act accordingly. It's not even wrong to argue that we should not describe the accused as innocent (as long as you acknowledge what the official approach suggests before ignoring it). We are all morally free to treat OJ however we like (and everyone else is morally able to judge us for it).

What is wrong is for media organizations (which can be as small as independent reporters) to break expected traditions w/o acknowledging it. It suggests that this case is different (and again, it might be different) implicitly, which isn't ethical. You should either work within the prevailing assumptions of the system, or explicitly defy them in a principled maner.

Re: Feds arrest couple, seize $3.6B in hacked Bitcoin funds

#395

Post by boring_twenties »

akomtu wrote: post #247
paulpauper wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

strong passwords. aes256 with even just 7 word password chosen from a 1000-word dictionary cannot be cracked with existing tech

TBH, with 4B at stake, I wouldnt blindly rely on AES. I'd use it as the 1st step, and then additionally encrypt its output with a custom AES-like algorithm (change tge s-box, change the number of rounds, maybe upgrade it to 512 bits). Even if my homebrew algo is weak, there's still standard AES behind it.

Why mess with AES when you can just use another strong algorithm or two? e.g. AES+SERPENT+Twofish, with three separate unrelated keys of course.

Re: Feds arrest couple, seize $3.6B in hacked Bitcoin funds

#396

Post by alasdair_ »

djanogo wrote: post #317
bostonsre wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why he wouldn't move to somewhere that doesn't have an extradition policy with the US. If you go down that path, it seems like you should probably be willing to abandon your life. It's the same with Ross Ulbricht, seems like it would be terrifying living with that sword of damocles hanging over your head absolutely constantly.

If he goes somewhere which doesn't have extradition, FED's will just call him and tell him they will go public that he has $4B bitcoin and ALL criminals will be hunting them after that.

$4Bn can buy some pretty good fake identities.

Re: Feds arrest couple, seize $3.6B in hacked Bitcoin funds

#397

Post by dhsysusbsjsi »

giarc wrote: post #250
tiffanyh wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "It sounds from the release that the justice department has a boatload of compelling evidence against them." You'd hope that before someone is arrested, the prosecutor has ample evidence to prove guilt. I don't understand your point. These individuals have not been proven guilty yet. Why are you editorializing their presumed guilt in this matter. Note: I have no affiliation with these individuals nor case.

I think the commentor is stating that you and I have no reason to presume innocence until proven guilty. We can make up our own opinion. However, the judicial system has to assume innocence so the defendant can get a fair trial.

But not so much that they let them go. Quite often there is a very fast hearing within 1-2 weeks where a Judge decides to lock them up for 2 years without parole awaiting trial, because it's pretty damn clear they're probably guilty - enough initial evidence not to let them back out into society at least.

Re: Feds arrest couple, seize $3.6B in hacked Bitcoin funds

#398

Post by gzer0 »

Here's how the fed caught them:

"The DOJ said it was able to seize the funds after an FBI search warrant of one of Lichtenstein's cloud storage accounts found a file containing cryptocurrency addresses and their corresponding private key that granted access to funds stored within."

Re: Feds arrest couple, seize $3.6B in hacked Bitcoin funds

#399

Post by polynomial »

robbedpeter wrote: post #359
notch656a wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why anyone would use BTC and not some privacy coin for this kind of scenario escapes me.

Because they stole bitcoin. Good luck finding a non institutional buyer for tainted bitcoins when you're dealing in billions usd. Everyone shuffling bits at that level is going to play by the rules and cover their ass. Even large criminal exchanges will avoid stolen bitcoin in any sort of volume because it means instant scrutiny.

Even large criminal exchanges outside of US jurisdiction? (ie, Russia, China, etc.)

Re: Feds arrest couple, seize $3.6B in hacked Bitcoin funds

#400

Post by trhway »

CrazyStat wrote: post #388
trhway wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

reading a bit about him and the hack (which at some point was for example blamed on those Israeli brothers with connections to IDF hacking unit) i kind of not sure that he is the hacker ( and note that he is charged with laundering not hacking) - he in my view better fits the profile of the "investor"/"fencer" whose involvement would be to launder. Sidenote: one of the reasons i don't touch crypto is possible launder…

> Sidenote: one of the reasons i don't touch crypto is possible laundering charge/suspicion if the tokens happens to had passed through unsavory hands/situation A page recently posted here ([1], citing [2]) claimed that there's a market for freshly mined Bitcoin (i.e. with no history), with people paying as much as 20% markup for it to avoid such risks. I didn't make any attempt to verify this claim. [1] https://seth…

It still doesn't protect from possible future tainting of those tokens and thus suspicion of your participation. It may be even more suspicious as you would be the one who bought clean coins supposedly in order to minimize attention to whatever future crime the tokens may be involved.
Post reply on HN