DEA Agents in Silk Road Case Face Fraud Charges

[duckydonald]

yeah he can go after them, after he is free

[1714939392]

1714939392

[1714939392]

1714939392

[tokeweed]

Two former federal agents are expected to be arrested on Monday on charges of stealing money while working undercover on an investigation into Silk Road, the once-thriving black market website for drug dealing, a document shows.

Read more: http://www.coinspectator.com/dea-agents-in-silk-road-case-face-fraud-charges/

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

[Blackbird0]

any chance this would give ulbricht a window to climb out?

Yes.  Prosecutorial misconduct.  It can have VERY far reaching implications.  Now, the prosecution is easily shown to have reason to lie.  About this - and other things.  This is VERY good for Ross.  I am pretty sure his attorney will be asking for a retrial by the end of the week.

This isn't prosecutorial misconduct. Firstly, it's not misconduct by the prosecutors. Secondly, I'm not sure that the prosecutors were under a duty to disclose this. The agents did not testify, so this doesn't go to their credibility (Giglio). It's not exculpatory, in that it doesn't tend to negate the guilt of one of the elements of the charges against Ulbricht. That means it's not Brady. And of course it's not under the Jencks Act because the agents didn't testify.

[kolloh]

It figures if they thought they could get away with it, they would attempt something like this.

Large sums of money like this are very tempting to people.

[Blackbird0]

any chance this would give ulbricht a window to climb out?

Yes.  Prosecutorial misconduct.  It can have VERY far reaching implications.  Now, the prosecution is easily shown to have reason to lie.  About this - and other things.  This is VERY good for Ross.  I am pretty sure his attorney will be asking for a retrial by the end of the week.

This isn't prosecutorial misconduct. Firstly, it's not misconduct by the prosecutors. Secondly, I'm not sure that the prosecutors were under a duty to disclose this. The agents did not testify, so this doesn't go to their credibility (Giglio). It's not exculpatory, in that it doesn't tend to negate the guilt of one of the elements of the charges against Ulbricht. That means it's not Brady. And of course it's not under the Jencks Act because the agents didn't testify.

So what impact do you think this will have on his fate (if any)?

I don't think any. Brady allegations--allegations that the government had exculpatory evidence that it failed to turn over--are very hard to win.

[Blackbird0]

any chance this would give ulbricht a window to climb out?

Yes.  Prosecutorial misconduct.  It can have VERY far reaching implications.  Now, the prosecution is easily shown to have reason to lie.  About this - and other things.  This is VERY good for Ross.  I am pretty sure his attorney will be asking for a retrial by the end of the week.

This isn't prosecutorial misconduct. Firstly, it's not misconduct by the prosecutors. Secondly, I'm not sure that the prosecutors were under a duty to disclose this. The agents did not testify, so this doesn't go to their credibility (Giglio). It's not exculpatory, in that it doesn't tend to negate the guilt of one of the elements of the charges against Ulbricht. That means it's not Brady. And of course it's not under the Jencks Act because the agents didn't testify.

So what impact do you think this will have on his fate (if any)?

I don't think any. Brady allegations--allegations that the government had exculpatory evidence that it failed to turn over--are very hard to win.

Can it be brought up in regards to his sentence? 10 years is better than nothing...

I don't see how it's legally relevant.

[duckydonald]

corruption with the feds means shit could had been faked, lied, false evidence since there was corruption involved in the case

[Eastfist]

any chance this would give ulbricht a window to climb out?

Yes.  Prosecutorial misconduct.  It can have VERY far reaching implications.  Now, the prosecution is easily shown to have reason to lie.  About this - and other things.  This is VERY good for Ross.  I am pretty sure his attorney will be asking for a retrial by the end of the week.

This isn't prosecutorial misconduct. Firstly, it's not misconduct by the prosecutors. Secondly, I'm not sure that the prosecutors were under a duty to disclose this. The agents did not testify, so this doesn't go to their credibility (Giglio). It's not exculpatory, in that it doesn't tend to negate the guilt of one of the elements of the charges against Ulbricht. That means it's not Brady. And of course it's not under the Jencks Act because the agents didn't testify.

So what impact do you think this will have on his fate (if any)?

I don't think any. Brady allegations--allegations that the government had exculpatory evidence that it failed to turn over--are very hard to win.

Can it be brought up in regards to his sentence? 10 years is better than nothing...

I don't see how it's legally relevant.

Exsmactly. Ross gotta go to jail for running a drug empire, tough beans. But these two crooked agents gotta go to jail for a separate context. One trial is about drugs, the other is about money fraud. But both are crimes.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

any chance this would give ulbricht a window to climb out?

Yes.  Prosecutorial misconduct.  It can have VERY far reaching implications.  Now, the prosecution is easily shown to have reason to lie.  About this - and other things.  This is VERY good for Ross.  I am pretty sure his attorney will be asking for a retrial by the end of the week.

This isn't prosecutorial misconduct. Firstly, it's not misconduct by the prosecutors. Secondly, I'm not sure that the prosecutors were under a duty to disclose this. The agents did not testify, so this doesn't go to their credibility (Giglio). It's not exculpatory, in that it doesn't tend to negate the guilt of one of the elements of the charges against Ulbricht. That means it's not Brady. And of course it's not under the Jencks Act because the agents didn't testify.

So what impact do you think this will have on his fate (if any)?

I don't think any. Brady allegations--allegations that the government had exculpatory evidence that it failed to turn over--are very hard to win.

Can it be brought up in regards to his sentence? 10 years is better than nothing...

I don't see how it's legally relevant.

Exsmactly. Ross gotta go to jail for running a drug empire, tough beans. But these two crooked agents gotta go to jail for a separate context. One trial is about drugs, the other is about money fraud. But both are crimes.

Life behind bars for running a website. What will these crooked officers get for raping the public trust?

[bryant.coleman]

Exsmactly. Ross gotta go to jail for running a drug empire, tough beans. But these two crooked agents gotta go to jail for a separate context. One trial is about drugs, the other is about money fraud. But both are crimes.

Oh... I see, If Ross deserves Life without parole for running a website, then in your opinion what would be the quantum of punishment given to people like OJ Simpson and Oscar Pistorious, who have murdered people?

[rtrtcrypto]

any chance this would give ulbricht a window to climb out?

Yes.  Prosecutorial misconduct.  It can have VERY far reaching implications.  Now, the prosecution is easily shown to have reason to lie.  About this - and other things.  This is VERY good for Ross.  I am pretty sure his attorney will be asking for a retrial by the end of the week.

This isn't prosecutorial misconduct. Firstly, it's not misconduct by the prosecutors. Secondly, I'm not sure that the prosecutors were under a duty to disclose this. The agents did not testify, so this doesn't go to their credibility (Giglio). It's not exculpatory, in that it doesn't tend to negate the guilt of one of the elements of the charges against Ulbricht. That means it's not Brady. And of course it's not under the Jencks Act because the agents didn't testify.

Much of the evidence used in the trial was collected via the agents who are now being charged with extortion the person they were investigating, no? If that is the case, then it would appear that throwing doubt on what parts of their investigation were true/real and what parts were fabricated would be pretty easy, no? At least enough to interfere with the juries ability to reach a verdict, correct?

Does this not also amount to entrapment on some level? Seems like the government can usually get away with entrapment, but, something like THIS!? I would be surprised if "nothing" changes in the coming weeks. There needs to be a re-trial at the very least - reasonable doubt is now in play for many charges, no?

 

[Blackbird0]

Much of the evidence used in the trial was collected via the agents who are now being charged with extortion the person they were investigating, no?If that is the case, then it would appear that throwing doubt on what parts of their investigation were true/real and what parts were fabricated would be pretty easy, no? At least enough to interfere with the juries ability to reach a verdict, correct?

I don't think so, no. Given that these agents did not testify in trial, I imagine that their testimony was not used to lay down chains of custody for any evidence at trial. And that their testimony was not necessary to prove any of the charges against Ulbricht.

Does this not also amount to entrapment on some level? Seems like the government can usually get away with entrapment, but, something like THIS!? I would be surprised if "nothing" changes in the coming weeks. There needs to be a re-trial at the very least - reasonable doubt is now in play for many charges, no?

Entrapment is not what you think it is. Entrapment is an extremely narrow type of legal argument, that depends on a defendant successfully arguing that absent the government action, they would not have done what they were alleged to have do. That's a pretty laughable argument against Ulbricht, given that he was running SR long before the federal agents became involved.

Just reading the reporting from this, I would think "nothing" will change. I'm sure the defense team will file some motions, but I don't think any of them will be successful. After all, from the reporting I read, the defense knew about this already, and the judge precluded them from bringing it up during trial. If the judge didn't think it was relevant then, it wouldn't be relevant now.

[rtrtcrypto]

It's really incredible, at least to me, that you can have agents who are investigating you fabricate and extort you during their investigation and that this can have no ill effects on the findings of their investigation!

I believe you, btw... you obviously know a lot more about the case and law than I. I just find it somewhat strange that something like this can be allowed to remain outside of the trial. If the agents made up a number of claims and "crimes" that were supposed to be committed, I find it very hard to prove in court what charges and accusations are in fact real and which are fabricated - at least so that the jury could feel they have grasped the situation beyond a reasonable doubt.

Thanks for you answers, I'm glad to learn more about these issues. I will follow what happens from here on out. 

Much of the evidence used in the trial was collected via the agents who are now being charged with extortion the person they were investigating, no?If that is the case, then it would appear that throwing doubt on what parts of their investigation were true/real and what parts were fabricated would be pretty easy, no? At least enough to interfere with the juries ability to reach a verdict, correct?

I don't think so, no. Given that these agents did not testify in trial, I imagine that their testimony was not used to lay down chains of custody for any evidence at trial. And that their testimony was not necessary to prove any of the charges against Ulbricht.

Does this not also amount to entrapment on some level? Seems like the government can usually get away with entrapment, but, something like THIS!? I would be surprised if "nothing" changes in the coming weeks. There needs to be a re-trial at the very least - reasonable doubt is now in play for many charges, no?

Entrapment is not what you think it is. Entrapment is an extremely narrow type of legal argument, that depends on a defendant successfully arguing that absent the government action, they would not have done what they were alleged to have do. That's a pretty laughable argument against Ulbricht, given that he was running SR long before the federal agents became involved.

Just reading the reporting from this, I would think "nothing" will change. I'm sure the defense team will file some motions, but I don't think any of them will be successful. After all, from the reporting I read, the defense knew about this already, and the judge precluded them from bringing it up during trial. If the judge didn't think it was relevant then, it wouldn't be relevant now.

[Blackbird0]

It's really incredible, at least to me, that you can have agents who are investigating you fabricate and extort you during their investigation and that this can have no ill effects on the findings of their investigation!

I believe you, btw... you obviously know a lot more about the case and law than I. I just find it somewhat strange that something like this can be allowed to remain outside of the trial. If the agents made up a number of claims and "crimes" that were supposed to be committed, I find it very hard to prove in court what charges and accusations are in fact real and which are fabricated - at least so that the jury could feel they have grasped the situation beyond a reasonable doubt.

Thanks for you answers, I'm glad to learn more about these issues. I will follow what happens from here on out. 

Happy to answer questions! I usually get shouted down because I don't follow the bitcoin hive-mind.

I don't think the agents made up "claims" or "crimes" that Ulbricht was supposed to have committed. But rather they committed crimes themselves, by stealing some BTC. I don't think anything that they did demonstrates that Ulbricht did not do what he was convicted of doing.

Yeah, well, try to look at it this way: the FBI and government is a big place. If you have a criminal case A in New York, say, and some agents in Chicago that aren't on the case commit some crime, there's no reason to bring that into trial, right? We can all agree there. Now let's say you have criminal case B in Los Angeles, and the agents in that case commit a crime, they testify in the trial, and the court doesn't let in evidence of their crimes. We can all agree that that should be in the trial. So what about something more in the middle, like what we have here? We have agents on a team (a team that, in all likelihood, was probably pretty large given the scope of the SR case) who commit a crime, but don't testify at trial, and whose crimes don't, ultimately, exculpate Ulbricht. Should that come in? I would think not, and I expect the judge will agree.

[calme]

Those DEA agents had no right to take that money. That was money the U.S. government could have used for police/military gear and police/military salaries to uphold freedom in the only free and great country on Earth, and also to uphold American freedom by setting up military bases all over the world. This gives the American government no choice but to print more money or to declare more things illegal so that more money can be rightfully stolen.

[gmaxwell]

I don't think the agents made up "claims" or "crimes" that Ulbricht was supposed to have committed. But rather they committed crimes themselves, by stealing some BTC. I don't think anything that they did demonstrates that Ulbricht did not do what he was convicted of doing.

They did much more than steal some bitcoins according to the indictment. The investigators, in an effort to conceal their criminality and in bad faith did systematically conceal and destroy material evidence collected during their investigation. The investigators had administrator access to the Silk Road systems which they used to rob the silk road service and then framed the original owner of their admin account for the theft (and then, with another account, offered to conduct a "hit" against that admin to extract more money from DPR) in one of many (successful) extortion attempts they carried out over months-- spanning back long before the government had any idea who DPR might be (e.g. in April 2013 they believed it was "A.A."). Their unlawful actions were not limited to SR, e.g. Force ripped off a random user of the CoinMKT exchange to the tune of a quarter million dollars where he was moonlighting (against policy and in a conflict of interest) as their compliance officer. When Force's improper use of an administrative subpoena (to attempt to unblock his rightfully suspicious-flagged account) was reported to his  superior by Venmo (a payment processor subsidiary of Paypal) he responded by attempting to seize Venmo's accounts.

Lets put aside for a moment Force and Bridge's roles as law enforcement and read their indictment as though they were just private individuals. Considering their access, strongly established involvement (e.g. the money trail connecting _them_ to SR appears to be much stronger than the money trail connecting Ross to SR), established pattern of fraudulent and vindictive activities including framing C.G. for the theft of bitcoin; they'd make a nice direction to throw doubt at the prosecutions claims and support of Ross'  "it was someone else" argument.

Consider the counterfactual with the character portrait painted in their indictment in mind: If Force and/or Bridges had had the opportunity to take over the operation of SR (from which they could rip people off on a greater scale), would they have done so? I think the picture painted by the indictment says yes. If they had and Ross pissed them off, would they have framed him? I think the indictment says yes (or even without pissing them off: They seized MTGox's US accounts immediately after successfully getting their own funds out (to the detriment of everyone now suffering from MTGox's insolvency)). I think this is a much more powerful line of argument than "maybe magicaltux did it", at least. They destroyed evidence related to their own interactions with magicaltux (and appeared to have made a successful unlawful forfeiture against MTGox as part of their criminal activities). In the story told in the indictment, these parties had the motive, the means, and opportunity that would have permitted them to frame Ross in order to conceal their own criminality (or to protect someone else who was paying them more); and the defense was apparently prohibited from presenting this in the trial.

No doubt the prosecution did their hardest to separate out  any potentially poisoned evidence, but these parties were the states only inside eyes inside silkroad. It seems unlikely to me that any of the later evidence was derived in isolation of their input, but regardless: it appears that they'd heavily spoiled the crime scene before any of the other investigators arrived.

What this actually means in terms of the actual law and procedures in the court, but I can't imagine that it would have had no effect on the jury unless they were prohibited from hearing it, nor can I really imagine them being prohibited from hearing it if it had been anything other than law enforcement agents (e.g. if it had just been other random criminals).  But they were. I can't imagine why the defense didn't delay the trial so that more of this information could be presented.

This information has certainly made a number of strange things I observed make more sense.

Edit: Ah, I see Ross' attorney has made a statement: http://freeross.org/ulbrichts-attorneys-statement-regarding-silk-road-corruption/   Seems that I called at least part of their approach, plus apparently the state used the existence of this other prosecution to suppress other evidence from being presented.  Hopefully Dratel will now move to have whatever relevant filings or orders were made regarding this unsealed, so we can get a more objective view of how much this prejudiced the case.

[mikewirth]

Those DEA agents had no right to take that money. That was money the U.S. government could have used for police/military gear and police/military salaries to uphold freedom in the only free and great country on Earth, and also to uphold American freedom by setting up military bases all over the world. This gives the American government no choice but to print more money or to declare more things illegal so that more money can be rightfully stolen.

Team America! Fuck yeah!

[Mikestang]

I would never make a good cop because I would be tempted to steal shit all the time.  "Oh look, this belongs(ed) to the bad guy, no one will ever miss it..."

I can see how this would happen, it probably happens more than is ever found out.

[mikewirth]

any chance this would give ulbricht a window to climb out?

Yes.  Prosecutorial misconduct.  It can have VERY far reaching implications.  Now, the prosecution is easily shown to have reason to lie.  About this - and other things.  This is VERY good for Ross.  I am pretty sure his attorney will be asking for a retrial by the end of the week.

This isn't prosecutorial misconduct. Firstly, it's not misconduct by the prosecutors. Secondly, I'm not sure that the prosecutors were under a duty to disclose this. The agents did not testify, so this doesn't go to their credibility (Giglio). It's not exculpatory, in that it doesn't tend to negate the guilt of one of the elements of the charges against Ulbricht. That means it's not Brady. And of course it's not under the Jencks Act because the agents didn't testify.

Oh yeah?  Haven't you ever heard about 'fruit from the poisoned tree'?  Force4 was the lead investigator.  Every bit of evidence is derived from his original efforts.  There is no evidence which does not come from the work product of a criminal whose efforts were per se adverse to Ross' position.  

How do you like them apples Legal Beagle?

The Judge won't change her mind - I agree with you on this point.  But request for retrial is an action taken against her.  No doubt she won't agree with it.  But on appeal, a different judge will decide the tree question.