6 ms·

It's an interesting tactic, but will likely fall upon deaf ears. They arrested him at the library while he was logged into the site as an admin. That, combined

It's an interesting tactic, but will likely fall upon deaf ears. They arrested him at the library while he was logged into the site as an admin. That, combined with the fact that he possessed a Bitcoin wallet with ~144,000 BTC (worth ~$28.5 million at the time) in it, will likely carry more weight than any argument that other people were possibly running it. They also admitted on day 1 of the trial that he created SR - they are just saying that he turned it over to someone else and wasn't running it. All the government has to prove now is that he profited from it, which seems like a very low hurdle given the amount of BTC he had. Based upon all of this, I'd say he has a 99.9% chance of conviction, and will receive a sentence that will amount to life in prison. This judge will make an example out of him.

Cthulhu_ 12y ago
I hate to be pedantic, but, bitcoin wallets don't contain dollars. You can express bitcoin value in dollars, but that's a number that can change on a daily basis. It's like saying "he had a stock portfolio with $28 million in it"
- downandout 12y ago
  Yes, you are being pedantic. I did, however, edit the comment to make it more clear in case anyone else feels like being pedantic.
- Erikun 12y ago
  If you hate being pedantic, why be it?
  - jkaunisv1 12y ago
    Here's my perspective as a chronic pedant: my inherent* value system puts a high value on completeness of knowledge/understanding and clarity. But as a socially-aware human, I recognize people's dislike of pedantic behavior. Life is a fairly constant battle between satisfying my brain's need to provide clarity and not annoying people with often excessive or unwanted detail. Sometimes the itch to correct is strong enough that it's very difficult to ignore, even though I know it probably won't be well-received. * I say inherent because while I consciously value knowledge/clarity, I'd presently like to move past such strong obsession but I'm working against a couple decades of all the small events that have shaped my brain.
tomp 12y ago
It's really sad that there is a possibility for people who are convicted of non-violent, victimless crimes to spend their whole lives in prison.
- Wingman4l7 12y ago
  Non-violent? Sure. Victimless? Debatable.
  - hackerboos 12y ago
    I think he got 'drug user' and 'drug dealer' mixed up. The former is easy to defend and is 'victimless', the latter, not so much.
    - tomp 12y ago
      I didn't. Sure, offline drug dealers often cause violent crime, but online don't (apart from the accusation that DPR wanted to kill someone, but I stand firmly on the "innocent until proven guilty" side). The only people who buy drugs are the ones who want them, so you can't say they are victims.
      - chippy 12y ago
        It depends on the drug, literally. As dependency for some types leads to addiction which can cause problems, some of those addicted to some particular drug can be said to be victims. Many other drug types are not that harmful and users would be considered consumers. And of course some legal drugs are also harmful (nicotine, alcohol etc)....
        woah 12y ago
        What about Facebook or television? Or McDonalds? Once you feel that you have to moralize and keep people from doing things that you think are bad for them, where do you stop?
rplnt 12y ago
> and will receive a sentence that will amount to life in prison Does this contain an attempt to have someone killed? Or is it just running an online marketplace? If it's the latter I can't see how the sentence could be so harsh. Tax evasion tops.
- downandout 12y ago
  In the US, conspiracy to distribute narcotics can carry up to life in prison. The sentence is based on the amount and type of drugs involved in the conspiracy - there is actually a table [1] that determines the offense level (which is then used with another table to determine the sentence [2]). In this case, because of the sheer volume of drugs sold via SR, if found guilty on the drug charges alone (he also faces several others) he would be guaranteed a multi-decade sentence. Specifically, he's looking at a base offense level of 38, plus 2 points for distribution "through mass-marketing by means of an interactive computer service," for an offense level of 40. If he has no criminal history at all, that puts him in the 292-365 months (~25-30 years) in prison range on the drug charges alone. If he also gets the 2 point enhancement for making "a credible threat to use violence, or directed the use of violence" as has been alleged, then he would automatically be looking at 30 years to life since his offense level would be 42. [1] http://www.ussc.gov/guidelines-manual/2013/2013-2d11 http://www.ussc.gov/guidelines-manual/2013/2013-2d11 (see "drug quantity table") [2] http://www.ussc.gov/guidelines-manual/2013/2013-5asentab http://www.ussc.gov/guidelines-manual/2013/2013-5asentab
  - f3llowtraveler 12y ago
    Wow, sounds like the legislation itself in the U.S. is immoral and unethical.
  - Vespasian 12y ago
    Wow. It's crazy to see the difference between jurisdictions in this case. I took the time to look up the laws[1] for my country and found (disclaimer I'm no lawyer so I might be wrong) a maximum sentence of 5 years for anything related to drugs (including possession and Trafficking) Were the US sentences always that high or are they a result of the "War on Drugs"? [1]http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/btmg_1981/BJNR106810981.html#BJNR106810981BJNG000601308 http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/btmg_1981/BJNR106810981.ht...
oska 12y ago
There seems to be a tendency on HN to pre-judge the outcome of trials and speak beyond the level of one's legal expertise. Your first words are very prejudicial - "an interesting tactic". It's not a 'tactic', it's part of his defence. It might even be true. And your second paragraph is frankly fairly ridiculous - no trained lawyer talks about "a 99.9% chance of conviction".
- downandout 12y ago
  It is a defense tactic. They are trying to create reasonable doubt by suggesting that someone else may have been behind it - that's a tactic. As for the 99.9% comment, I was obviously trying to convey my opinion - based on the publicly available and very damning facts - that he has no meaningful chance of acquittal on the most serious counts. It wasn't meant to be a scientifically accurate number (as anyone but perhaps the Sheldon Coopers of the world surely understood). That said, the statistics are pretty close to that: once indicted at the federal level, every defendant on average has a 97% chance of being convicted [1]. Since this case is more airtight and more resources have been expended on it than most, my exaggerated number is not off by more than a few tenths of a percent. It's scary that we live in a country with a conviction rate this high, but it is an undeniable reality. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate - "For 2012, the US Department of Justice reported a 97% conviction rate."
  - CPLX 12y ago
    > It is a defense tactic. They are trying to create reasonable doubt by suggesting that someone else may have been behind it - that's a tactic. Actually suggesting someone else is behind it would appear to be the defense's strategy. The cross-examination of the DHS witness would be a defense tactic. There is a substantive difference between strategy and tactics that goes beyond semantics.
    - downandout 12y ago
      I think we're splitting hairs here. In any event, regardless of any tactics, strategies, or arguments they use, he is sure to be found guilty on most, if not all, of the charges.

Cthulhu_ 12y ago

I hate to be pedantic, but, bitcoin wallets don't contain dollars. You can express bitcoin value in dollars, but that's a number that can change on a daily basis. It's like saying "he had a stock portfolio with $28 million in it"

downandout 12y ago
Yes, you are being pedantic. I did, however, edit the comment to make it more clear in case anyone else feels like being pedantic.
Erikun 12y ago
If you hate being pedantic, why be it?
- jkaunisv1 12y ago
  Here's my perspective as a chronic pedant: my inherent* value system puts a high value on completeness of knowledge/understanding and clarity. But as a socially-aware human, I recognize people's dislike of pedantic behavior. Life is a fairly constant battle between satisfying my brain's need to provide clarity and not annoying people with often excessive or unwanted detail. Sometimes the itch to correct is strong enough that it's very difficult to ignore, even though I know it probably won't be well-received. * I say inherent because while I consciously value knowledge/clarity, I'd presently like to move past such strong obsession but I'm working against a couple decades of all the small events that have shaped my brain.

tomp 12y ago

It's really sad that there is a possibility for people who are convicted of non-violent, victimless crimes to spend their whole lives in prison.

Wingman4l7 12y ago
Non-violent? Sure. Victimless? Debatable.
- hackerboos 12y ago
  I think he got 'drug user' and 'drug dealer' mixed up. The former is easy to defend and is 'victimless', the latter, not so much.
  - tomp 12y ago
    I didn't. Sure, offline drug dealers often cause violent crime, but online don't (apart from the accusation that DPR wanted to kill someone, but I stand firmly on the "innocent until proven guilty" side). The only people who buy drugs are the ones who want them, so you can't say they are victims.
    - chippy 12y ago
      It depends on the drug, literally. As dependency for some types leads to addiction which can cause problems, some of those addicted to some particular drug can be said to be victims. Many other drug types are not that harmful and users would be considered consumers. And of course some legal drugs are also harmful (nicotine, alcohol etc)....
      - woah 12y ago
        What about Facebook or television? Or McDonalds? Once you feel that you have to moralize and keep people from doing things that you think are bad for them, where do you stop?

rplnt 12y ago

> and will receive a sentence that will amount to life in prison Does this contain an attempt to have someone killed? Or is it just running an online marketplace? If it's the latter I can't see how the sentence could be so harsh. Tax evasion tops.

downandout 12y ago
In the US, conspiracy to distribute narcotics can carry up to life in prison. The sentence is based on the amount and type of drugs involved in the conspiracy - there is actually a table [1] that determines the offense level (which is then used with another table to determine the sentence [2]). In this case, because of the sheer volume of drugs sold via SR, if found guilty on the drug charges alone (he also faces several others) he would be guaranteed a multi-decade sentence. Specifically, he's looking at a base offense level of 38, plus 2 points for distribution "through mass-marketing by means of an interactive computer service," for an offense level of 40. If he has no criminal history at all, that puts him in the 292-365 months (~25-30 years) in prison range on the drug charges alone. If he also gets the 2 point enhancement for making "a credible threat to use violence, or directed the use of violence" as has been alleged, then he would automatically be looking at 30 years to life since his offense level would be 42. [1] http://www.ussc.gov/guidelines-manual/2013/2013-2d11 http://www.ussc.gov/guidelines-manual/2013/2013-2d11 (see "drug quantity table") [2] http://www.ussc.gov/guidelines-manual/2013/2013-5asentab http://www.ussc.gov/guidelines-manual/2013/2013-5asentab
- f3llowtraveler 12y ago
  Wow, sounds like the legislation itself in the U.S. is immoral and unethical.
- Vespasian 12y ago
  Wow. It's crazy to see the difference between jurisdictions in this case. I took the time to look up the laws[1] for my country and found (disclaimer I'm no lawyer so I might be wrong) a maximum sentence of 5 years for anything related to drugs (including possession and Trafficking) Were the US sentences always that high or are they a result of the "War on Drugs"? [1]http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/btmg_1981/BJNR106810981.html#BJNR106810981BJNG000601308 http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/btmg_1981/BJNR106810981.ht...

oska 12y ago

There seems to be a tendency on HN to pre-judge the outcome of trials and speak beyond the level of one's legal expertise. Your first words are very prejudicial - "an interesting tactic". It's not a 'tactic', it's part of his defence. It might even be true. And your second paragraph is frankly fairly ridiculous - no trained lawyer talks about "a 99.9% chance of conviction".

downandout 12y ago
It is a defense tactic. They are trying to create reasonable doubt by suggesting that someone else may have been behind it - that's a tactic. As for the 99.9% comment, I was obviously trying to convey my opinion - based on the publicly available and very damning facts - that he has no meaningful chance of acquittal on the most serious counts. It wasn't meant to be a scientifically accurate number (as anyone but perhaps the Sheldon Coopers of the world surely understood). That said, the statistics are pretty close to that: once indicted at the federal level, every defendant on average has a 97% chance of being convicted [1]. Since this case is more airtight and more resources have been expended on it than most, my exaggerated number is not off by more than a few tenths of a percent. It's scary that we live in a country with a conviction rate this high, but it is an undeniable reality. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate - "For 2012, the US Department of Justice reported a 97% conviction rate."
- CPLX 12y ago
  > It is a defense tactic. They are trying to create reasonable doubt by suggesting that someone else may have been behind it - that's a tactic. Actually suggesting someone else is behind it would appear to be the defense's strategy. The cross-examination of the DHS witness would be a defense tactic. There is a substantive difference between strategy and tactics that goes beyond semantics.
  - downandout 12y ago
    I think we're splitting hairs here. In any event, regardless of any tactics, strategies, or arguments they use, he is sure to be found guilty on most, if not all, of the charges.