It should be noted that the killing was conspiraed by FBI Agents where some of them also stealed a bunch of bitcoin for their own interest.
It's nowhere mentioned cause it would put the Feds in a bad light
Are you suggesting that FBI actually forced him to contract a hitman? My understanding is that FBI set up the bait and this guy eat it hook and all. It is not illegal or even immoral to bait somebody, there was no pressure, FBI presented the opportunity and this guy wanted to have somebody killed.
It's certainly viewed as immoral at the very least in the UK.
"In R v Looseley; Attorney General's Reference (No 3 of 2000) [2002] 1 Cr. App. R. 29, the House of Lords held that although entrapment is not a substantive defence in English law, where an accused can show entrapment, the court may stay the proceedings as an abuse of the court's process or it may exclude evidence pursuant to Section 78 PACE 1984 ...
"Police conduct which brings about state-created crime is unacceptable and improper, and to prosecute in such circumstances would be an affront to the public conscience."
Iirc there was some coercion component to it too. The set up was the hells angels were gonna kill the dude anyways and told him if they didnt most of silkroad probably get caught/deanonymised /arrested. Considering the other claims of potential corruption, id say that classifies as an existential threat scenerio entirely created by law enforcement to coarce him into hiring the assassins as a "now or never, life or death" of ross and his customers situation.
Not anything damning either way, bit definitely food for thought.
I can easily see the fbi agents convincing him that his life was threatened by the 5 guys, offering to kill them, providing a contact for the hitman which is also an undercover fbi agent, then share the $750000
ddalex|3 years ago
w14|3 years ago
"In R v Looseley; Attorney General's Reference (No 3 of 2000) [2002] 1 Cr. App. R. 29, the House of Lords held that although entrapment is not a substantive defence in English law, where an accused can show entrapment, the court may stay the proceedings as an abuse of the court's process or it may exclude evidence pursuant to Section 78 PACE 1984 ...
"Police conduct which brings about state-created crime is unacceptable and improper, and to prosecute in such circumstances would be an affront to the public conscience."
- https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/abuse-process
deadly_syn|3 years ago
Not anything damning either way, bit definitely food for thought.
slim|3 years ago