>> Conspiracy to traffic? Just in case you didn't know: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_%28criminal%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_%28crim

>> Conspiracy to traffic? Just in case you didn't know: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_%28criminal%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_%28criminal%29 Conspiracy law usually does not require proof of specific intent by the defendants to injure any specific person to establish an illegal agreement. Instead, usually the law requires only that the conspirators have agreed to engage in a certain illegal act. Clearly, there was an agreement set forth. The owner of SR2.0 took money in exchange for people selling their goods and services on his site. If the site had some kind of terms of the agreement, which sellers had to ok, then he's screwed. >> Wire fraud? http://definitions.uslegal.com/w/wire-fraud/ http://definitions.uslegal.com/w/wire-fraud/ The essential element to be proved is that the person knowingly and willfully devised or intended to devise a scheme to defraud; and that the use of the interstate wire communications facilities was closely related to the scheme because the person either wired something or caused it to be wired in interstate commerce in an attempt to execute or carry out the scheme. This means he knew what he was doing was illegal and the use of the internet to essentially launder his money is what they're going after. Not the sale of the narcotics, but the transfer of money for ill gotten gains, which defrauded the US Government of tax revenue.