8 ms·

Volunteering to help out enemies develop sophisticated money laundering schemes is most certainly a crime, you know what they want to do with the information. J

Volunteering to help out enemies develop sophisticated money laundering schemes is most certainly a crime, you know what they want to do with the information. Just like flying to mexico to present to cartel leaders about how to utilize hlockchain to avoid shipping cash is illegal.

tptacek 7y ago
It seems like in this case he didn't so much have to wonder about whether what he was doing was a crime, since he asked and was informed by the State Department that it was.
- mapgrep 7y ago
  You’ve moved rather quickly from reductively summarizing the accusation to accepting it as fact. Last I checked, not everything federal prosecutors say turns out to be true.
  - tptacek 7y ago
    It is not my general inclination to believe that the DOJ routinely manufactures simple statements of fact out of whole cloth. Others on HN do have that inclination, sometimes powerfully. Regardless: (1) this is an unusually straightforward criminal complaint; it is short, spare, and composed principally out of simple falsifiable assertions, and (2) we're just randos on message boards talking and have no obligation to continuously and tediously disclaim that the DOJ has the burden of proving its assertions at trial. We all know it does.
    - mapgrep 7y ago
      DOJ does in fact do exactly that, and I’m not so sure about your own general inclination, actually, but let’s not make this about you.
      - tptacek 7y ago
        Please don't edit your comments in ways that change their original meaning.
        eganist 7y ago
        Rare upvotes from me on your comments, but regardless, do you have the original comment text e.g. from HN Replies in your inbox? (so that we can understand context)
    - sneak 7y ago
      > It is not my general inclination to believe that the DOJ routinely manufactures simple statements of fact out of whole cloth. I thought this as well for a while, until I had some (thankfully limited) contact with the federal machine during weev’s trial. What happens and what is said as truth in federal criminal court has very little to do with objectively measured reality.
    - miracle2k 7y ago
      It would not just have to prove the facts, but also convince a court of its interpretation of the law, on which the DOJ does not have the final word. Of course, we also know this. In fact, none of us needs to bother to comment, because whatever the courts decide is the law, is the law, and nothing else matters. Except of course that these are normative arguments; you clearly feel that, fundamentally, someone speaking at Pyongyang blockchain conference deserves to be prosecuted and possibly convicted, and you feel that this would be just regardless of what a court might ultimately decide on the matter (since you ultimately don't know the outcome). Some people apparently feel that the guy should not be prosecuted or convicted based on the actions he has been accused of; if there is a law that says otherwise, then maybe the law is wrong. Others might fear that what they feel can be an inhumanely cruel system will come down on a person in a way that will not serve justice. And who can blame them. Frankly, those people are the ones with a functioning moral compass.
      - throwaway2048 7y ago
        The other side of the coin is, teaching North Korean leadership (an infamously brutal regime) about how to evade international sanctions via cryptocoin technology. How many millions of people have they "come down on in a way that did not serve justice". Aiding such a brutally repressive regime should absolutely be a crime. And yes, the world is not perfect, and many nations get away with similar sorts of crimes (although almost universally on a smaller scale), that doesn't make him some sort of good guy.
- mirimir 7y ago
  If that's all true, one wonders about his motivation. Perhaps Griffith just did it to make a point. I don't know what his point might have been. Maybe just that the laws are unjust, contravene freedom, etc, etc. Sort of like refusing to register vehicles and display plates. Or dealing in "ghost guns" or whatever. I'm certainly sympathetic. But I can't imagine doing that stuff using my meatspace identity. For Snowden, having worked for the NSA lent credibility to his actions. But I don't see the point for Griffith.
  - adventured 7y ago
    I'm entirely unsympathetic. He knew exactly what he was doing, he knew that it was illegal and he knew who he was helping out. That's all extraordinarily clear. Maybe it's as simple as Griffith looking to make a name for himself and jumpstart a criminal enterprise that he knew would inherently involve doing blackmarket deals with bad actors. He certainly knew who he was helping out, re North Korea. Having the North Korean effort on your new criminal resume would be a large resume booster. It also explains why he would be looking to leave the US, where he'd be guaranteed to get nailed by the feds for anything in that arena eventually (and sooner than later). There has certainly been enough of that action in the crypto era and money is a prime motivator for most people.
    - mirimir 7y ago
      I guess. But 5-20 years in federal prison is quite the career investment.
      - tptacek 7y ago
        5 is the high side, not the low side, according to the sentencing guidelines (which directly capture the fact that it's North Korea he helped; the sentencing guidelines for 50 USC 1705 practically read as if they were written specifically for North Korea).
        tomjakubowski 7y ago
- no_opinions 7y ago
  > since he asked and was informed by the State Department that it was. But what did Griffith see when he asked for permission from the State department, though? Did he know violating sanctions was criminal, or something potentially that'd be an infraction? Couldn't it be a civil penalty? Is there an official form for what asking to visit a country under embargo (e.g. North Korea or Iran) looks like? Is there a template/example for what a denial to visit an embargoed country looks like? For instance if there's something involving classified information, I'm to understand there is SF-312 (https://fas.org/sgp/isoo/new_sf312.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/isoo/new_sf312.pdf). It's all about explaining who / what / where / why and that there are criminal penalties for mishandling info / leaking / etc. So, do we know how much Griffith knew of the implications of what he was doing?
- refurb 7y ago
  This seems like a great example where “ask forgiveness, not permission” would be helpful. The fact he was told “no”, then did it anyways puts him in a very difficult position.
  - chrisseaton 7y ago
    > This seems like a great example where “ask forgiveness, not permission” would be helpful. How about don't do it at all?
    - refurb 7y ago
      That’s an obvious option.
- baddox 7y ago
  Wait, in your first description I assumed you were saying that it was a crime because the State Department said he couldn’t go and he still did. Now it sounds like that’s not why you mentioned that part.
  - tptacek 7y ago
    An element of this particular crime is that he had to commit it willfully.
edm0nd 7y ago
NK doesn't need help developing this. NK has been hacking various cryptocurrency exchanges and websites stealing hundreds of millions of USD worth of crypto via their APT aka the Lazarus Group.
CryptoPunk 7y ago
Wasn't this just a presentation providing generic blockchain information? I don't think he's being accused of advising on how to use the blockchain for any specific illegal act, let alone a "sophisticated money laundering scheme". From a brief read through of the government's case, it seems their case rests on the accused doing the presentation despite having privately admitted to his friend that North Korea is likely interested in cryptocurrency to avoid sanctions. See this: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EKkbzzYWwAAdAqa?format=jpg&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EKkbzzYWwAAdAqa?format=jpg&name=... tl;dr: In a response to a question about why he thought NK was interested in cryptocurrency, he is alleged to have said "probably to avoid sanctions ... who knows". So it was his alleged belief that they would probably utilize the general information on the blockchain that he would be presenting for illegal purposes that made his giving of the presentation illegal, according to the government.
- tptacek 7y ago
  The current law regarding North Korea forbids providing technical training that would support their money laundering or evasion of sanctions, and they've apparently got Griffith talking about sanctions evasion directly, so they've got what seem to be multiple predicates to pursue this on.
codedokode 7y ago
Whom are you calling "an enemy" here? Is there a war between US and that "enemy" now?
- rrss 7y ago
  North Korea. Is this an actual question? Since technically the Korean War never ended, yes, there is a war.
  - thefringthing 7y ago
    The United States is not formally a party to the Korean War. Congress never declared war.

tptacek 7y ago

It seems like in this case he didn't so much have to wonder about whether what he was doing was a crime, since he asked and was informed by the State Department that it was.

mapgrep 7y ago
You’ve moved rather quickly from reductively summarizing the accusation to accepting it as fact. Last I checked, not everything federal prosecutors say turns out to be true.
- tptacek 7y ago
  It is not my general inclination to believe that the DOJ routinely manufactures simple statements of fact out of whole cloth. Others on HN do have that inclination, sometimes powerfully. Regardless: (1) this is an unusually straightforward criminal complaint; it is short, spare, and composed principally out of simple falsifiable assertions, and (2) we're just randos on message boards talking and have no obligation to continuously and tediously disclaim that the DOJ has the burden of proving its assertions at trial. We all know it does.
  - mapgrep 7y ago
    DOJ does in fact do exactly that, and I’m not so sure about your own general inclination, actually, but let’s not make this about you.
    - tptacek 7y ago
      Please don't edit your comments in ways that change their original meaning.
      - eganist 7y ago
        Rare upvotes from me on your comments, but regardless, do you have the original comment text e.g. from HN Replies in your inbox? (so that we can understand context)
  - sneak 7y ago
    > It is not my general inclination to believe that the DOJ routinely manufactures simple statements of fact out of whole cloth. I thought this as well for a while, until I had some (thankfully limited) contact with the federal machine during weev’s trial. What happens and what is said as truth in federal criminal court has very little to do with objectively measured reality.
  - miracle2k 7y ago
    It would not just have to prove the facts, but also convince a court of its interpretation of the law, on which the DOJ does not have the final word. Of course, we also know this. In fact, none of us needs to bother to comment, because whatever the courts decide is the law, is the law, and nothing else matters. Except of course that these are normative arguments; you clearly feel that, fundamentally, someone speaking at Pyongyang blockchain conference deserves to be prosecuted and possibly convicted, and you feel that this would be just regardless of what a court might ultimately decide on the matter (since you ultimately don't know the outcome). Some people apparently feel that the guy should not be prosecuted or convicted based on the actions he has been accused of; if there is a law that says otherwise, then maybe the law is wrong. Others might fear that what they feel can be an inhumanely cruel system will come down on a person in a way that will not serve justice. And who can blame them. Frankly, those people are the ones with a functioning moral compass.
    - throwaway2048 7y ago
      The other side of the coin is, teaching North Korean leadership (an infamously brutal regime) about how to evade international sanctions via cryptocoin technology. How many millions of people have they "come down on in a way that did not serve justice". Aiding such a brutally repressive regime should absolutely be a crime. And yes, the world is not perfect, and many nations get away with similar sorts of crimes (although almost universally on a smaller scale), that doesn't make him some sort of good guy.
mirimir 7y ago
If that's all true, one wonders about his motivation. Perhaps Griffith just did it to make a point. I don't know what his point might have been. Maybe just that the laws are unjust, contravene freedom, etc, etc. Sort of like refusing to register vehicles and display plates. Or dealing in "ghost guns" or whatever. I'm certainly sympathetic. But I can't imagine doing that stuff using my meatspace identity. For Snowden, having worked for the NSA lent credibility to his actions. But I don't see the point for Griffith.
- adventured 7y ago
  I'm entirely unsympathetic. He knew exactly what he was doing, he knew that it was illegal and he knew who he was helping out. That's all extraordinarily clear. Maybe it's as simple as Griffith looking to make a name for himself and jumpstart a criminal enterprise that he knew would inherently involve doing blackmarket deals with bad actors. He certainly knew who he was helping out, re North Korea. Having the North Korean effort on your new criminal resume would be a large resume booster. It also explains why he would be looking to leave the US, where he'd be guaranteed to get nailed by the feds for anything in that arena eventually (and sooner than later). There has certainly been enough of that action in the crypto era and money is a prime motivator for most people.
  - mirimir 7y ago
    I guess. But 5-20 years in federal prison is quite the career investment.
    - tptacek 7y ago
      5 is the high side, not the low side, according to the sentencing guidelines (which directly capture the fact that it's North Korea he helped; the sentencing guidelines for 50 USC 1705 practically read as if they were written specifically for North Korea).
      - tomjakubowski 7y ago
no_opinions 7y ago
> since he asked and was informed by the State Department that it was. But what did Griffith see when he asked for permission from the State department, though? Did he know violating sanctions was criminal, or something potentially that'd be an infraction? Couldn't it be a civil penalty? Is there an official form for what asking to visit a country under embargo (e.g. North Korea or Iran) looks like? Is there a template/example for what a denial to visit an embargoed country looks like? For instance if there's something involving classified information, I'm to understand there is SF-312 (https://fas.org/sgp/isoo/new_sf312.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/isoo/new_sf312.pdf). It's all about explaining who / what / where / why and that there are criminal penalties for mishandling info / leaking / etc. So, do we know how much Griffith knew of the implications of what he was doing?
refurb 7y ago
This seems like a great example where “ask forgiveness, not permission” would be helpful. The fact he was told “no”, then did it anyways puts him in a very difficult position.
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  > This seems like a great example where “ask forgiveness, not permission” would be helpful. How about don't do it at all?
  - refurb 7y ago
    That’s an obvious option.
baddox 7y ago
Wait, in your first description I assumed you were saying that it was a crime because the State Department said he couldn’t go and he still did. Now it sounds like that’s not why you mentioned that part.
- tptacek 7y ago
  An element of this particular crime is that he had to commit it willfully.

edm0nd 7y ago

NK doesn't need help developing this. NK has been hacking various cryptocurrency exchanges and websites stealing hundreds of millions of USD worth of crypto via their APT aka the Lazarus Group.

CryptoPunk 7y ago

Wasn't this just a presentation providing generic blockchain information? I don't think he's being accused of advising on how to use the blockchain for any specific illegal act, let alone a "sophisticated money laundering scheme". From a brief read through of the government's case, it seems their case rests on the accused doing the presentation despite having privately admitted to his friend that North Korea is likely interested in cryptocurrency to avoid sanctions. See this: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EKkbzzYWwAAdAqa?format=jpg&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EKkbzzYWwAAdAqa?format=jpg&name=... tl;dr: In a response to a question about why he thought NK was interested in cryptocurrency, he is alleged to have said "probably to avoid sanctions ... who knows". So it was his alleged belief that they would probably utilize the general information on the blockchain that he would be presenting for illegal purposes that made his giving of the presentation illegal, according to the government.

tptacek 7y ago
The current law regarding North Korea forbids providing technical training that would support their money laundering or evasion of sanctions, and they've apparently got Griffith talking about sanctions evasion directly, so they've got what seem to be multiple predicates to pursue this on.

codedokode 7y ago

Whom are you calling "an enemy" here? Is there a war between US and that "enemy" now?

rrss 7y ago
North Korea. Is this an actual question? Since technically the Korean War never ended, yes, there is a war.
- thefringthing 7y ago
  The United States is not formally a party to the Korean War. Congress never declared war.