Ex-U.S. agent gets over six years for Bitcoin theft in Silk Road probe(reuters.com)
reuters.com
Ex-U.S. agent gets over six years for Bitcoin theft in Silk Road probe
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/19/us-usa-bitcoin-silkroad-idUSKCN0SD2IA20151019
9 comments
>How can his testimony against Ulbricht be considered trustworthy at this point?
It's my understanding that his testimony wasn't used. But despite that, such rottenness at the heart of the investigation (two agents up to their necks in corruption) is seriously troubling, because it leaves any reasonable person wondering what else was going on that we don't know about.
It's also deeply troubling that the unproven (though admittedly plausible) murder-for-hire allegations could be used to taint Ulbricht's defense, undermine support for him, and as a reason to increase his sentence, while the corruption within the investigating team was kept hidden from the public, and even the jury, throughout the trial. It appears to be a blatant double standard to me.
It's my understanding that his testimony wasn't used. But despite that, such rottenness at the heart of the investigation (two agents up to their necks in corruption) is seriously troubling, because it leaves any reasonable person wondering what else was going on that we don't know about.
It's also deeply troubling that the unproven (though admittedly plausible) murder-for-hire allegations could be used to taint Ulbricht's defense, undermine support for him, and as a reason to increase his sentence, while the corruption within the investigating team was kept hidden from the public, and even the jury, throughout the trial. It appears to be a blatant double standard to me.
Ulbricht unsuccessfully motioned for a new trial a few months ago on that basis: http://www.wired.com/2015/04/silk-road-judge-says-no-new-tri...
After reading http://www.scribd.com/doc/283722300/Ross-Ulbricht-Sentencing I'm a strong believer that the only thing that could remotely help Ulbricht is bringing evidence that he's gone crazy for several years now.
Judge strongly believes he ordered at least 5 murder-for-hire (but no bodies have been found), strongly believes that he was aware about all this despite the claim that this was just an experiment and the consequences were not known in advance, and so on.
Judge strongly believes he ordered at least 5 murder-for-hire (but no bodies have been found), strongly believes that he was aware about all this despite the claim that this was just an experiment and the consequences were not known in advance, and so on.
There were two parallel investigation teams with different agencies. A different team tracked down Ulbrich, and it was the other team's evidence that was used at the trial.
The title should be U.S. Agent (now Ex-) gets over six years for Bitcoin theft in Silk Road probe.. Reuters try to emphasise the agent is not government to distance the agent from the authorities, but I think we'd be blind to pretend elsewhere police don't confiscate people's money for their own pensions or salaries, where dogs get shot for sport, where senators accept cushy jobs after their tenure in return for having a certain stance, government paying way too much for screws and toilet seats. This is one rare case where an agent abused their position actually got caught.
Indeed. The title should be "US Agent gets six years" if he was a US Agent up until he was tried and convicted for the crime we're discussing.
A description like "ex US Agent" should be applied only to a person whose crimes were committed after their service as an agent and with no connection. It seems like this agent committed their crimes while working as an agent, and it would be more appropriate to describe them as "US Agent".
A description like "ex US Agent" should be applied only to a person whose crimes were committed after their service as an agent and with no connection. It seems like this agent committed their crimes while working as an agent, and it would be more appropriate to describe them as "US Agent".
I understand where you're coming from, but accusing Reuters of manipulating the headline to suit some kind of political agenda is a bit disingenuous. Remember that news organizations have style guides and (mostly) adhere to them strictly -- you wouldn't say "MLB player Pete Rose reinstated after 25-year ban for gambling" because Pete Rose is not an active MLB player, so why would you do so here?
From the Reuters Handbook [1]:
>ex-
Make sure this prefix is hyphenated to the word it limits. Note the difference between a Conservative ex-minister and an ex-Conservative minister. Prefer “former” in written text , e.g., “Former Brazilian finance minister Jorge Braga was killed on Tuesday when...” “Ex-” may be used for brevity in headlines, e.g., “Ex-minister killed in Brazil air crash.”
1. http://handbook.reuters.com/?title=E#ex-
From the Reuters Handbook [1]:
>ex-
Make sure this prefix is hyphenated to the word it limits. Note the difference between a Conservative ex-minister and an ex-Conservative minister. Prefer “former” in written text , e.g., “Former Brazilian finance minister Jorge Braga was killed on Tuesday when...” “Ex-” may be used for brevity in headlines, e.g., “Ex-minister killed in Brazil air crash.”
1. http://handbook.reuters.com/?title=E#ex-
Is he an Ex-minister because he's dead and no longer a minister?
The agent was still an agent when he performed the crime. It is disgenuous to say he's an ex-U.S. agent when he lost his title because of the incident.
You wouldn't say Ex-president Obama was impeached, that's just weird.
There are academic papers pointing out Reuters propaganda. http://blogs.roosevelt.edu/hsilverman/files/2011/11/Reuters-...
The agent was still an agent when he performed the crime. It is disgenuous to say he's an ex-U.S. agent when he lost his title because of the incident.
You wouldn't say Ex-president Obama was impeached, that's just weird.
There are academic papers pointing out Reuters propaganda. http://blogs.roosevelt.edu/hsilverman/files/2011/11/Reuters-...
As another reply said, the President cannot be impeached once he's out of office, but congressmen are convicted of crimes relatively regularly and receive the same treatment, e.g.:
"Ex-Rep. Jefferson (D-La.) gets 13 years in freezer cash case" by the Washington Post [1]
"Ex-Congressman Gets 8-Year Term in Bribery Case" by the New York Times [2]
Each of these convictions related to things that happened while they were still Members of Congress. I'm quite happy that news outlets treat government officials the same way they'd treat a baseball player -- to do otherwise would just be a different form of "propaganda."
1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11... 2. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/04/politics/04cunningham.html
"Ex-Rep. Jefferson (D-La.) gets 13 years in freezer cash case" by the Washington Post [1]
"Ex-Congressman Gets 8-Year Term in Bribery Case" by the New York Times [2]
Each of these convictions related to things that happened while they were still Members of Congress. I'm quite happy that news outlets treat government officials the same way they'd treat a baseball player -- to do otherwise would just be a different form of "propaganda."
1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11... 2. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/04/politics/04cunningham.html
> The agent was still an agent when he performed the crime.
Which would be relevant if the headline was about the commission of the crime, and not the conviction. He was not an agent at the time of his conviction, and had not been for some time. Reporting on the conviction, "former agent" or "ex-agent" is accurate, and anything else would be inaccurate.
> You wouldn't say Ex-president Obama was impeached, that's just weird.
Well, yeah, because an ex-President can't be impeached (unless they are now in another impeachable office.)
Impeachment happens while you are in office, and doesn't remove you from office (it is the formal initiation of a process which might, with conviction, result in removal from office.)
So, its not really a comparable thing.
Which would be relevant if the headline was about the commission of the crime, and not the conviction. He was not an agent at the time of his conviction, and had not been for some time. Reporting on the conviction, "former agent" or "ex-agent" is accurate, and anything else would be inaccurate.
> You wouldn't say Ex-president Obama was impeached, that's just weird.
Well, yeah, because an ex-President can't be impeached (unless they are now in another impeachable office.)
Impeachment happens while you are in office, and doesn't remove you from office (it is the formal initiation of a process which might, with conviction, result in removal from office.)
So, its not really a comparable thing.
not only dogs
The first federal agents to ever have the chance to steal bitcoins did it. Imagine what that says about how corrupt these organizations are.
Ex-US agent seems kind of deliberate distancing. He was an agent when he did the deed and the title should present that accordingly.
Edit: ninja'd by meric
Edit: ninja'd by meric
This is beyond fucked. Those granted such incredible influence and the trust to not abuse their position of power should be punished proportionately when they do so.
This, on the other hand, is a joke.
This, on the other hand, is a joke.
If you can't get rich from theft, at least get famous for being the poster child case for blockchain forensics...
Ulbricht got life partly based on Force's testimony. Scumbag.
They have plenty of evidence besides that, not the least of which was the correspondence regarding the murder he plotted.
Well one of the murders he "plotted", was documented in a chat log by...Carl Force. Which is sort of suboptimal if you are hanging an attempted murder charge based strictly on anonymous torchat logs and the testimony of a convicted dirty federal agent.
In the 21-page IM chat log, which occurred over the anonymous IM service Torchat, the Silk Road’s Dread Pirate Roberts carries out conversations with his staffer Inigo, a supposed drug-dealing associate named Nob (who we now know was actually undercover DEA agent Carl Force), and a figure named Cimon, also known as Variety Jones, whom Ulbricht had described in his journal as his “mentor” and advisor. [0]
[0]http://www.wired.com/2015/04/silk-road-boss-first-murder-att...
In the 21-page IM chat log, which occurred over the anonymous IM service Torchat, the Silk Road’s Dread Pirate Roberts carries out conversations with his staffer Inigo, a supposed drug-dealing associate named Nob (who we now know was actually undercover DEA agent Carl Force), and a figure named Cimon, also known as Variety Jones, whom Ulbricht had described in his journal as his “mentor” and advisor. [0]
[0]http://www.wired.com/2015/04/silk-road-boss-first-murder-att...
The chat logs were stored by Ross Ulbricht on his personal encrypted laptop and were also used as evidence against Carl Force.
I didn't know that, interesting. Still though, those conversations may not have happened had Force not been trying to extort him. I haven't looked at the case in a while so thanks for bringing that up. I still think being a crooked gov. agent makes you a scumbag. I don't know enough about the law to know if an appeal is possible, but if the "murder plot" evidence was mostly based on conversations with Force and the evidence he provided to Ulbricht about a threat, it does seem a bit dodgy. If he tells RU that he is being targeted, tries to extort him, and otherwise introduces those elements into the equation it seems like it is self-serving for his extortion attempt. Also, if you have a source I am interested. Why would you keep unencrypted chat logs discussing murder on your PC?
He kept encrypted chat logs, presumably because he thought the encryption would keep it safe from the police.
He also kept a diary. From the sentencing proceedings at http://motherboard.vice.com/read/unsealed-transcript-shows-h... :
Then, in Government Exhibit 241, March 2014, you wrote a journal of short snippets of your day and you write -- and each of these snippets is going to be one after another, they're just tiny snippets with a period in between:
March 28: "Being blackmailed with user info. Talking with large distributor, (hell's angels)."
Then, March 29th: "Commissioned hit on blackmailer with angels."
April 1: "Got word that blackmailer was executed. Created file upload script." So, you went back to the technical work right after getting word that the blackmailer had been executed. "Started to fix problem with bond refunds."
Government Exhibit 936 details communications relating to that hit further. Apparently you were sent a photo of the hit. The photo was no longer in existence, you acknowledge receiving the photo and deleting it.
A short time later you wrote, on April 6: "Make sure backup crons are working. Gave angels go ahead to find tony76." Who was the subject of the next hit. "Cleaned up unused libraries on server."
Two days later on April 8 you write: "Sent payments to angel for hit on Tony76 and his three associates. setting up hecho as standby" -- I have no idea what that is -- "refactored main and category pages to be more efficient."
He also kept a diary. From the sentencing proceedings at http://motherboard.vice.com/read/unsealed-transcript-shows-h... :
Then, in Government Exhibit 241, March 2014, you wrote a journal of short snippets of your day and you write -- and each of these snippets is going to be one after another, they're just tiny snippets with a period in between:
March 28: "Being blackmailed with user info. Talking with large distributor, (hell's angels)."
Then, March 29th: "Commissioned hit on blackmailer with angels."
April 1: "Got word that blackmailer was executed. Created file upload script." So, you went back to the technical work right after getting word that the blackmailer had been executed. "Started to fix problem with bond refunds."
Government Exhibit 936 details communications relating to that hit further. Apparently you were sent a photo of the hit. The photo was no longer in existence, you acknowledge receiving the photo and deleting it.
A short time later you wrote, on April 6: "Make sure backup crons are working. Gave angels go ahead to find tony76." Who was the subject of the next hit. "Cleaned up unused libraries on server."
Two days later on April 8 you write: "Sent payments to angel for hit on Tony76 and his three associates. setting up hecho as standby" -- I have no idea what that is -- "refactored main and category pages to be more efficient."
> those conversations may not have happened had Force not been trying to extort him
The court has already heard their complaints on that and ruled against them. His lawyer didn't even mention entrapment as a defense, so it's probably waived, but it wouldn't have bought him much anyhow.
There really are no legal defenses available for spending a day or two thinking about having someone killed for threatening to expose your crimes.
But yes, the scumbag agent who committed crimes of his own will get punished for that.
The court has already heard their complaints on that and ruled against them. His lawyer didn't even mention entrapment as a defense, so it's probably waived, but it wouldn't have bought him much anyhow.
There really are no legal defenses available for spending a day or two thinking about having someone killed for threatening to expose your crimes.
But yes, the scumbag agent who committed crimes of his own will get punished for that.
2 life sentences to be correct
just to point out they were threatening aaron schwartz with 50+ years when he killed himself. he just downloaded medical journals from the campus networking closet.
these guys were corrupt officials engaging in, hacking, conspiracy (RICO laws), theft, destruction of evidence and probably blackmail and money laundering and tax evasion.
6 years.
schwartz was a political activist, these guys were just dirty special agents. thats how the book is thrown.
these guys were corrupt officials engaging in, hacking, conspiracy (RICO laws), theft, destruction of evidence and probably blackmail and money laundering and tax evasion.
6 years.
schwartz was a political activist, these guys were just dirty special agents. thats how the book is thrown.
It's Aaron Swartz and he in no way was facing "50+ years". The cumulative max sentence is in no way representative of what the potential or likely sentence will look like. He was likely facing ~6 months based on the charges against him. Here's a good article about why this is the case;
https://popehat.com/2015/10/08/bad-reporting-on-matthew-keys...
https://popehat.com/2015/10/08/bad-reporting-on-matthew-keys...
When I the beginning of this discussion line, I made a point to look up this Popehat article. Continued reading to see that you found it. =)
Popehat (a group blog run by geek lawyers) is really fantastic for getting into the nuts and bolts of criminal law, and I cannot recommend it to HN readers enough.
Popehat (a group blog run by geek lawyers) is really fantastic for getting into the nuts and bolts of criminal law, and I cannot recommend it to HN readers enough.
Yeah, I love their site. They do a ton of work on first amendment, free speech, and anti-SLAPP cases and will sometimes provide pro bono representation for the right cause. It also helps that they clearly explain all of the procedure and standards they're adhering to.
For a person who isn't a hardened criminal and hasn't done anything wrong, just the knowledge of being the focus of a huge investigation is more than enough to cause mental trouble.
6 months would have pretty much destroyed his life, especially when it comes to getting a job
Not really, if you apply for a "traditional" unskilled/semi-skilled job yes, but in this case nope...
Given his abilities and renown he would find a job both despite and because of his would be conviction.
There are plenty of "security experts" that started as hackers/crackers and with time served on their records that don't have issue finding a job.
If you apply to Walmart with a record well GL, but in Tech hmm you've hacked into the DOD? well how about 6 figures + equity if you come work for us...
The guy was part of the RSS working group at what 14 and part of the RDF group at W3C at 15? If he would not have tragically ended his life he would've ended up working for Google or any other tech company he would choose to work for regardless of his conviction.
Given his abilities and renown he would find a job both despite and because of his would be conviction.
There are plenty of "security experts" that started as hackers/crackers and with time served on their records that don't have issue finding a job.
If you apply to Walmart with a record well GL, but in Tech hmm you've hacked into the DOD? well how about 6 figures + equity if you come work for us...
The guy was part of the RSS working group at what 14 and part of the RDF group at W3C at 15? If he would not have tragically ended his life he would've ended up working for Google or any other tech company he would choose to work for regardless of his conviction.
It doesn't matter. They threatened him with it. They didn't threaten this DEA goon with it. His union lawyers or whatever made sure of it. It was real to Aaron.
> It doesn't matter. They threatened him with it. They didn't threaten this DEA goon with it.
Even if that's true (for which no evidence is presented), the DEA agent, being a federal law enforcement professional, probably understands federal sentencing, so probably wouldn't be susceptible to threats that can only work on someone who doesn't understand that.
> His union lawyers or whatever made sure of it.
I am sure that any competent criminal defense lawyer makes both the theoretical maximum and the likely real sentences clear to their clients, yes. That's actually a good thing, I would say. Not, of course, that information on this is particularly hard to find even for reasonably intelligent laypersons with access to public information.
Even if that's true (for which no evidence is presented), the DEA agent, being a federal law enforcement professional, probably understands federal sentencing, so probably wouldn't be susceptible to threats that can only work on someone who doesn't understand that.
> His union lawyers or whatever made sure of it.
I am sure that any competent criminal defense lawyer makes both the theoretical maximum and the likely real sentences clear to their clients, yes. That's actually a good thing, I would say. Not, of course, that information on this is particularly hard to find even for reasonably intelligent laypersons with access to public information.
Uh, what the fuck? Seriously? This guy was both facing a higher THEORETICAL maximum than Aaron, and got a significantly higher sentence than Aaron could have ever received.
And no, Aaron was definitely not "threatened" with 50 years. Where are you getting that from?
And no, Aaron was definitely not "threatened" with 50 years. Where are you getting that from?
And your evidence for this is?
Force faced a cumulative maximum sentence of sixty years and $750k in fines. He opted to plead guilty. There's no particular reason to believe the plea bargaining process was friendly. He got six years, and the prosecution argued for more.
Force faced a cumulative maximum sentence of sixty years and $750k in fines. He opted to plead guilty. There's no particular reason to believe the plea bargaining process was friendly. He got six years, and the prosecution argued for more.
6 years in prison is a lot. And 6 years in an American prison is a lot.
While I agree with your sentiment, the problem is that Swartz faced charges up to 50 years, not that this crooked cop got convicted of 6.
Wishing this guy 50 years just because "that's what they threatened Aaron for" is the kind of attitude that is going to keep the US prison system as horrendously inhumane as it is today.
While I agree with your sentiment, the problem is that Swartz faced charges up to 50 years, not that this crooked cop got convicted of 6.
Wishing this guy 50 years just because "that's what they threatened Aaron for" is the kind of attitude that is going to keep the US prison system as horrendously inhumane as it is today.
> Wishing this guy 50 years just because "that's what they threatened Aaron for" is the kind of attitude that is going to keep the US prison system as horrendously inhumane as it is today.
On the contrary, if we apply the law equally we might see some push for reform from current groups that consider themselves basically above the law.
On the contrary, if we apply the law equally we might see some push for reform from current groups that consider themselves basically above the law.
[deleted]
Where exactly did they threaten Swartz with 50+ years?
Lying is a very questionable way to push your political agenda.
"he just downloaded medical journals from the campus networking closet" isn't very accurate either, he broke into a server cabinet and actively evaded security measures to download medical journals.
Keep in mind that he wasn't even ever sentenced, which makes him a REALLY shitty poster boy for US legal system abuses.
Lying is a very questionable way to push your political agenda.
"he just downloaded medical journals from the campus networking closet" isn't very accurate either, he broke into a server cabinet and actively evaded security measures to download medical journals.
Keep in mind that he wasn't even ever sentenced, which makes him a REALLY shitty poster boy for US legal system abuses.
I don't think he's lying, and I don't understand why people seem to use 'lying' as a synonym for 'wrong'. Lying requires an intent to decieve. In this case, the GP probably believes, albeit incorrectly, that the media reports about the sentence Swartz was likely to recieve were correct. Remember that the 50 year figure was widely reported at the time, often by sources that seemed reliable. Your issue should be with the media outlets that failed to fact-check in favour of a sensational story...
Anybody with the most basic understanding of the US legal system should understand that it's obviously not true.
You'd expect for someone who is as ready to criticize the system as OP is to actually sort of understand what he's talking about.
Honestly, I'm just really pissed because statements like that are actually really harmful as they only work to divert attention from the real issues that need fixing. Some kid killing themselves because they were too scared to face court isn't an issue with the legal system, but with the (mental) healthcare system. (Note that at the time Swartz hadn't even been found guilty, much less sentenced.)
You'd expect for someone who is as ready to criticize the system as OP is to actually sort of understand what he's talking about.
Honestly, I'm just really pissed because statements like that are actually really harmful as they only work to divert attention from the real issues that need fixing. Some kid killing themselves because they were too scared to face court isn't an issue with the legal system, but with the (mental) healthcare system. (Note that at the time Swartz hadn't even been found guilty, much less sentenced.)
> In this case, the GP probably believes, albeit incorrectly, that the media reports about the sentence Swartz was likely to recieve were correct.
I don't think there were any media reports claiming that Swartz was likely to receive anything like the max sentence, only that it was the maximum allowed in the law.
Unsophisticated readers may have falsely concluded that Swartz was likely to receive that sentence, but that's not what any of the media reports I saw said.
> Remember that the 50 year figure was widely reported at the time, often by sources that seemed reliable.
None of the media reports I saw that presented the figure -- as an "up to" figure, invariably -- did so inaccurately, or claimed it was a likely sentence rather than the most extreme theoretically available for the offenses for which he was charged.
I don't think there were any media reports claiming that Swartz was likely to receive anything like the max sentence, only that it was the maximum allowed in the law.
Unsophisticated readers may have falsely concluded that Swartz was likely to receive that sentence, but that's not what any of the media reports I saw said.
> Remember that the 50 year figure was widely reported at the time, often by sources that seemed reliable.
None of the media reports I saw that presented the figure -- as an "up to" figure, invariably -- did so inaccurately, or claimed it was a likely sentence rather than the most extreme theoretically available for the offenses for which he was charged.
...and an honorary Darwin Award.
> According to a government document, Force, operating as "Nob," in August 2013 convinced Ulbricht to pay him $50,000 in bitcoins by pretending he had information on the investigation. While Force reported the discussion to the DEA, he falsely claimed no payment had been made but instead diverted the bitcoins to a personal account, prosecutors said. Force, also without authorities' knowledge, used another online moniker, "French Maid," and offered Ulbricht information on the investigation for about $98,000 in bitcoins in September 2013, prosecutors said.
The guy was playing both sides. How can his testimony against Ulbricht be considered trustworthy at this point? I haven't followed the Silk Road case closely, but from my not-carefully-examined position, it seems like the government waited to bring charges against Force until after their case against Ulbricht was well on its way, or had already concluded. I wonder if the case against Ulbricht would have gone differently had he been able to challenge the credibility of the witnesses against him based on what we know today, that they are guilty of these crimes. I also wonder whether Ulbricht's prosecution knew about Force's crimes at the time, and I wonder whether that was disclosed to Ulbricht.
Where does this all leave Ulbricht?