4 ms·

> but in Ulbricht's case it was pretty white collar Ross tried, on multiple occasions, to hire hitmen to kill people he didn't like. I think once you get into

> but in Ulbricht's case it was pretty white collar Ross tried, on multiple occasions, to hire hitmen to kill people he didn't like. I think once you get into wetworks, it no longer counts as "white collar". Thank goodness he didn't actually succeed.

dantheman 6y ago
Really, he was convicted of that? Because to the best of my knowledge all those charges were dropped. https://www.dailydot.com/crime/silk-road-murder-charges-ross-ulbricht/ https://www.dailydot.com/crime/silk-road-murder-charges-ross...
- amyjess 6y ago
  What does it matter what he was convicted of? He still did it.
  - h0l0cube 6y ago
    There's a distinction between allegation (and even conviction/settlement) and fact. On a case this high profile and with such high stakes there's plenty of motivation for spurious allegations. That they didn't follow through is telling
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - lukas099 6y ago
      They did not follow through because he failed to actually hire a hitman. He got scammed instead, which ironically saved him. I encourage you to read the transcript in which he attempts to arrange the assassinations [1]. It is pretty obvious what he is doing. To go back to the original point, though, I do not believe that his crimes make his ideas about social networks irrelevant. [1] https://www.wired.com/2015/02/read-transcript-silk-roads-boss-ordering-5-assassinations/ https://www.wired.com/2015/02/read-transcript-silk-roads-bos...
      - h0l0cube 6y ago
        > They did not follow through because he failed to actually hire a hitman. Not sure why that isn't a crime, but I stand corrected. Thanks for responding with legitimate criticism instead of just downvoting
    - hshshs2 6y ago
      what’s telling about it? they got what they wanted with an easier case... that doesn’t absolve him of other crimes, it happens all the time
      - h0l0cube 6y ago
        My point was that it shouldn't have been harder. Prosecute everything so that if one charge doesn't lead to conviction, another will. And given the money needed to catch him, the legal expense would have been justified. According to a sibling reply, the hitman was actually a scammer. Not a lawyer, but it seems like they could have easily tried him for attempted murder.
        hshshs2 6y ago
        for attempted murder you have to do things like prove motives and intent, with scams you can just show the paper trail and call it a day
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - vorpalhex 6y ago
    Unless you are purporting to have psychic powers, it seems difficult for you to know he did it outside of conviction.
- lukas099 6y ago
  He was not convicted, but it's pretty plain to see that he did it. Fortunately, the people he hired for the assassinations were really just scam artists who conned him out of some money. The prosecution decided that it would not be worth it for the state to pursue murder charges in such an unprecedented scenario. On the other hand, the assassination attempt was taken into account by the judge for sentencing.
  - ashleyn 6y ago
    > He was not convicted > the assassination attempt was taken into account by the judge for sentencing There are a whole slew of problems advocating for the ability for judges to sentence people for crimes they were never convicted of.
    - tekromancr 6y ago
      I don't think a life sentence was appropriate, but I don't think you're concern here is really what happened. judges have some discretion when it comes to which end of the minimum/maximum end of the scale to sentence someone convicted of a particular crime, and using facts entered into evidence and never contested when exercising that is pretty standard.
- tptacek 6y ago
  The murder-for-hire schemes were predicates to his conspiracy charge, not just innuendo.

dantheman 6y ago

Really, he was convicted of that? Because to the best of my knowledge all those charges were dropped. https://www.dailydot.com/crime/silk-road-murder-charges-ross-ulbricht/ https://www.dailydot.com/crime/silk-road-murder-charges-ross...

amyjess 6y ago
What does it matter what he was convicted of? He still did it.
- h0l0cube 6y ago
  There's a distinction between allegation (and even conviction/settlement) and fact. On a case this high profile and with such high stakes there's plenty of motivation for spurious allegations. That they didn't follow through is telling
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - lukas099 6y ago
    They did not follow through because he failed to actually hire a hitman. He got scammed instead, which ironically saved him. I encourage you to read the transcript in which he attempts to arrange the assassinations [1]. It is pretty obvious what he is doing. To go back to the original point, though, I do not believe that his crimes make his ideas about social networks irrelevant. [1] https://www.wired.com/2015/02/read-transcript-silk-roads-boss-ordering-5-assassinations/ https://www.wired.com/2015/02/read-transcript-silk-roads-bos...
    - h0l0cube 6y ago
      > They did not follow through because he failed to actually hire a hitman. Not sure why that isn't a crime, but I stand corrected. Thanks for responding with legitimate criticism instead of just downvoting
  - hshshs2 6y ago
    what’s telling about it? they got what they wanted with an easier case... that doesn’t absolve him of other crimes, it happens all the time
    - h0l0cube 6y ago
      My point was that it shouldn't have been harder. Prosecute everything so that if one charge doesn't lead to conviction, another will. And given the money needed to catch him, the legal expense would have been justified. According to a sibling reply, the hitman was actually a scammer. Not a lawyer, but it seems like they could have easily tried him for attempted murder.
      - hshshs2 6y ago
        for attempted murder you have to do things like prove motives and intent, with scams you can just show the paper trail and call it a day
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- vorpalhex 6y ago
  Unless you are purporting to have psychic powers, it seems difficult for you to know he did it outside of conviction.
lukas099 6y ago
He was not convicted, but it's pretty plain to see that he did it. Fortunately, the people he hired for the assassinations were really just scam artists who conned him out of some money. The prosecution decided that it would not be worth it for the state to pursue murder charges in such an unprecedented scenario. On the other hand, the assassination attempt was taken into account by the judge for sentencing.
- ashleyn 6y ago
  > He was not convicted > the assassination attempt was taken into account by the judge for sentencing There are a whole slew of problems advocating for the ability for judges to sentence people for crimes they were never convicted of.
  - tekromancr 6y ago
    I don't think a life sentence was appropriate, but I don't think you're concern here is really what happened. judges have some discretion when it comes to which end of the minimum/maximum end of the scale to sentence someone convicted of a particular crime, and using facts entered into evidence and never contested when exercising that is pretty standard.
tptacek 6y ago
The murder-for-hire schemes were predicates to his conspiracy charge, not just innuendo.