5 ms·

Ex-U.S. agent gets over six years for Bitcoin theft in Silk Road probe

60 points by warunsl 11y ago

loopdoend 11y ago
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.
meric 11y ago
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.
- Pyxl101 11y ago
  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".
- culturestate 11y ago
  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- http://handbook.reuters.com/?title=E#ex-
  - meric 11y ago
    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-article-JABR.pdf http://blogs.roosevelt.edu/hsilverman/files/2011/11/Reuters-...
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > 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.
    - culturestate 11y ago
      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/2009/11/13/AR2009111301266.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11... 2. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/04/politics/04cunningham.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/04/politics/04cunningham.html
- rurban 11y ago
  not only dogs
fit2rule 11y ago
If you can't get rich from theft, at least get famous for being the poster child case for blockchain forensics...
Pyxl101 11y ago
The level of corruption is indeed staggering: > 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?
- _delirium 11y ago
  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-trial-despite-agents-alleged-corruption/ http://www.wired.com/2015/04/silk-road-judge-says-no-new-tri...
- FatalLogic 11y ago
  >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.
brunorsini 11y ago
...and an honorary Darwin Award.
staunch 11y ago
The first federal agents to ever have the chance to steal bitcoins did it. Imagine what that says about how corrupt these organizations are.
erhardm 11y ago
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
vonklaus 11y ago
Ulbricht got life partly based on Force's testimony. Scumbag.
- Natsu 11y ago
  They have plenty of evidence besides that, not the least of which was the correspondence regarding the murder he plotted.
  - vonklaus 11y ago
    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-attempt-mentors-idea/ http://www.wired.com/2015/04/silk-road-boss-first-murder-att...
    - tveita 11y ago
      The chat logs were stored by Ross Ulbricht on his personal encrypted laptop and were also used as evidence against Carl Force.
      - vonklaus 11y ago
        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?
mc_hammer 11y ago
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.
- mikeyouse 11y ago
  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-possible-sentence-conceals-prosecutorial-power/ https://popehat.com/2015/10/08/bad-reporting-on-matthew-keys...
  - loopdoend 11y ago
    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.
    - ryanlol 11y ago
      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?
    - notahacker 11y ago
      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.

60 points by warunsl 11y ago

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.

meric 11y ago

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.

Pyxl101 11y ago
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".
culturestate 11y ago
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- http://handbook.reuters.com/?title=E#ex-
- meric 11y ago
  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-article-JABR.pdf http://blogs.roosevelt.edu/hsilverman/files/2011/11/Reuters-...
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > 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.
  - culturestate 11y ago
    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/2009/11/13/AR2009111301266.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11... 2. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/04/politics/04cunningham.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/04/politics/04cunningham.html
rurban 11y ago
not only dogs

fit2rule 11y ago

If you can't get rich from theft, at least get famous for being the poster child case for blockchain forensics...

Pyxl101 11y ago

The level of corruption is indeed staggering: > 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?

_delirium 11y ago
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-trial-despite-agents-alleged-corruption/ http://www.wired.com/2015/04/silk-road-judge-says-no-new-tri...
FatalLogic 11y ago
>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.

brunorsini 11y ago

...and an honorary Darwin Award.

staunch 11y ago

The first federal agents to ever have the chance to steal bitcoins did it. Imagine what that says about how corrupt these organizations are.

erhardm 11y ago

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

vonklaus 11y ago

Ulbricht got life partly based on Force's testimony. Scumbag.

Natsu 11y ago
They have plenty of evidence besides that, not the least of which was the correspondence regarding the murder he plotted.
- vonklaus 11y ago
  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-attempt-mentors-idea/ http://www.wired.com/2015/04/silk-road-boss-first-murder-att...
  - tveita 11y ago
    The chat logs were stored by Ross Ulbricht on his personal encrypted laptop and were also used as evidence against Carl Force.
    - vonklaus 11y ago
      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?

mc_hammer 11y ago

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.

mikeyouse 11y ago
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-possible-sentence-conceals-prosecutorial-power/ https://popehat.com/2015/10/08/bad-reporting-on-matthew-keys...
- loopdoend 11y ago
  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.
  - ryanlol 11y ago
    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?
  - notahacker 11y ago
    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.