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 from apprehending them. If the statute of limitations really is 5 years, and you leave the country 4 years after the act; even if you stay abroad for a year, or 5 years, or 20 years, the clock only resumes when you return. You can still be charged 24 years after committing the offense.
- Furtherance. Put simply, if you continue to engage in the activity, the statute of limitations is reset. For example, this article describes his repeated moving of the assets after the initial theft in order to avoid detection.
- Special Circumstances. In this case, there are exceptions that mean that the statute of limitations is not actually 5 years.
It's not clear which of these apply. I would definitely bet on option #2. If he spent any time outside of the country, also apply option #1. If any of the special circumstances defined in the law apply, also apply option #3.
It seemed to me that option #1 only applied if you were a fugitive and your whereabouts were unknown, not when you simply leave the state or country.
As to furtherance, I wonder how precise the definition of it is; is using proceeds of a crime, furtherance of a crime? Is obfuscating a crime, furtherance of a crime?
Is the limitation in relation to being penalised for a crime, or somebody being wanted for a crime?
If there was a police report about a crime, if the police were unable to determine who committed the crime but at a later date could do so beyond reasonable doubt?
What if the perpetrator evades police for 5 years but remains in-state?
What’s your location also, that would be relevant to the laws your referring to.
Dang, so if this person just left the BTC in a cold wallet for 5 years, did no more crimes, and stayed put, he could have gotten away free and clear? Or does #3 essentially mean they can just extend the limit forever if they can come up with a plausible sounding enough reason?
"Tolling" is a controversial theory from 17th century English common law when rebels fled to France or the colonies.
It will be very much tested this year when Trump is prosecuted under the theory that being in Washington DC counts as "out of the country" or "outside the jurisdiction of the city of New York" and therefore the statute of limitations has not run out.
> 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
> 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
> 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.
> THE COURT: All right. I find that Mr. Zhong has knowingly and voluntarily waived both venue as well as any argument here that the crime charged in the information is time barred.
How does this even work?
So can the defendant "knowingly and voluntarily" give up their right to defend via Constitution?
I think the defense leaned on the part where the owner of the service basically allowed him to keep it, plus cooperation; if the judge rules him innocent (e.g. while he exploited a bug, the then-owner did not press charges and rewarded him), he might get the BTC back, but this time cleared of any crimes. Meaning he can cash in and walk free.
Well, relatively free, his face and name are known and if he is exonerated, everyone will know he's a multi-billionaire and the life of himself and others are in danger.
He gave up the coins because his lawyer probably advised him the statute of limitations would not apply here or hold up. If it did apply there would be no case at all, full stop. So a plea is better than facing up to 20 years.
aaronmdjones|2 years ago
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 from apprehending them. If the statute of limitations really is 5 years, and you leave the country 4 years after the act; even if you stay abroad for a year, or 5 years, or 20 years, the clock only resumes when you return. You can still be charged 24 years after committing the offense.
- Furtherance. Put simply, if you continue to engage in the activity, the statute of limitations is reset. For example, this article describes his repeated moving of the assets after the initial theft in order to avoid detection.
- Special Circumstances. In this case, there are exceptions that mean that the statute of limitations is not actually 5 years.
It's not clear which of these apply. I would definitely bet on option #2. If he spent any time outside of the country, also apply option #1. If any of the special circumstances defined in the law apply, also apply option #3.
ucha|2 years ago
It seemed to me that option #1 only applied if you were a fugitive and your whereabouts were unknown, not when you simply leave the state or country.
As to furtherance, I wonder how precise the definition of it is; is using proceeds of a crime, furtherance of a crime? Is obfuscating a crime, furtherance of a crime?
Edit: This answers most of my questions and the answer seems to be "it's complicated" https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RL31253.pdf
hsbauauvhabzb|2 years ago
If there was a police report about a crime, if the police were unable to determine who committed the crime but at a later date could do so beyond reasonable doubt?
What if the perpetrator evades police for 5 years but remains in-state?
What’s your location also, that would be relevant to the laws your referring to.
skizm|2 years ago
paulpauper|2 years ago
could be this one . maybe someone can do FOIA on the case
phillipharr1s|2 years ago
pmarreck|2 years ago
If so, that is even more tragic than his inability to get anyone to wet his whistle even with all that cash >..<
Xorakios|2 years ago
It will be very much tested this year when Trump is prosecuted under the theory that being in Washington DC counts as "out of the country" or "outside the jurisdiction of the city of New York" and therefore the statute of limitations has not run out.
from|2 years ago
> 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.
lazide|2 years ago
rvba|2 years ago
How does this even work?
So can the defendant "knowingly and voluntarily" give up their right to defend via Constitution?
Cthulhu_|2 years ago
Well, relatively free, his face and name are known and if he is exonerated, everyone will know he's a multi-billionaire and the life of himself and others are in danger.
paulpauper|2 years ago
Waterluvian|2 years ago
Crime as an event. Crime as a state. ;)
Is it perhaps that by continuing to act on the proceeds from crime, the individual(s) are prolonging or tacking on additional crimes?
epgui|2 years ago