He is probably better off getting caught and get his sentence over with than to live watching his back betting a country won’t turn him in for decades
A few years ago, a man named Son Jung-woo was arrested for running what was the largest child porn site in the world back then. His sentence? 18 months. The U.S. wanted to put him away for life, but the Korean courts would not deport him.
I'm sure Do Kwon would rather hand himself in to the Korean authorities than risk going to prison in any other country.
This couldn't be further from the truth and shows how the majority of people do not understand the benefits that crypto offers.
Do Kwon might not be any good at sneaking though airports, but he certainly knows his way around the crypto scene. He has had plenty of time to launder his coins. In fact, he's probably had more time to plan and execute an exit scheme than any of the other crooks who got busted lately. So I wouldn't underestimate how well he has hidden his embezzled billions.
Bitcoin is going nowhere. Time itself will teach the naysayers. HN will be angry, in denial, etc as the trend of bitcoin adoption plays out. But they can’t be so ignorant as to stop it. In other words, their education is not required.
The opposite: hard to hide (thanks to blockchain) but also impossible to confiscate (assuming you did it right or don't cave in).
If the purpose of the confiscation is simply to freeze the funds, it seems many agencies can do so. If they're patient enough, they'll eventually catch the owner when the funds move.
Is this because of the courts or prosecutors? I don't see the latter being lenient with a fugitive.
The sentencing guidelines maintained by the courts have all sorts of criteria for reducing the sentence that can be compounded to skew the result heavily towards the low end of the legally mandated range, and many times even below the legal minimum. For example, people who were drunk when they committed crimes often get away with lower sentences because "they probably weren't aware of what they were doing." Bonus points if you have a wife and kids to feed, pay a token amount to your victims as compensation, get your mom to write a letter to the judge, and/or act like you're sorry on your day in court. Some of these criteria have good reasons, but allow them to be compounded and that's how you end up with "you're guilty of raping your coworker, but you may go home."
If he doesn't want to be extradited, he can delay the process for quite a while like Julian Assange did.
Then we should pray he gets extradited somewhere else.
Wouldn't the right word here be "extradite", or was he a US citizen?
This was the subject of the "Welcome to Video" episode of Darknet Diaries[1]. IIRC, he couldn't be extradited to the US because he was facing a lawsuit in Korea, one filed by his own father seemingly for precisely this side effect.
Then I wonder why he didn't just turn himself in, do the time and come out after a couple years and enjoy his spoils.
I'd imagine prison in SK is bearable enough.
This may have changed since I lived there in the early 2000s, but they shave your head and make you perform hard labor for 12 hours a day, usually farming to raise most of the food that you will eat while incarcerated.
In the South Korean Army, seniors beat juniors with impunity and abuse them so brazenly that US soldiers get briefings to "mind your own business" when they arrive and again before any joint operations with the ROKA-- and the prisons are worse. My roommate when I lived there was a KATUSA, a Korean soldier who spoke English who was embedded in the US Army, and he was happy every single day because every Korean male has to be in the army and "in the US army they don't beat the shit out of you".
In the US a fraudster like Kwon will go to a facility like FCI Otisville.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/41°29'47.0%22N+74°31'38.0%...
Please note the tennis courts and baseball diamond.
The US-Korean SOFA (status of forces agreement) was amended in the mid-2000s to segregate US military personnel in Korean prisons from the general population and:
1. Allow them to bathe at least once every five days
2. Prevent forced labor requirements from exceeding 12 hours per day
3. Provide food prepared to the standard of the US military in lieu of Korean food
4. Provide undergarments like underwear and socks to supplement their prison-issued smocks
https://www.usfk.mil/Portals/105/Documents/Publications/Regu...
Prior to this change labor often exceeded 12 hours per day, the physically larger US personnel were collapsing due to malnutrition, bathing was not permitted, nor were socks and underwear.
When I was there, pre-SOFA amendment the briefings were very detailed about the conditions under which prisoners lived as part of a "scared straight" initiative-- "Don't fuck up or you'll wish you were in Leavenworth, here is the shit, with photos, of what South Korean prisoners go through."
A British consulate guide notes the meagre diet and harsh conditions prisoners operate under.
>Meals are adequate, but very Spartan. British Nationals sometimes cannot fully adjust to the Korean diet. Funds from the prison work programme can be used to buy a small quantity of supplemental foods.
>The Korean authorities do not tolerate dissent from prisoners (e.g. assaulting or talking back to guards, or for refusing to co-operate or follow instructions). Their methods for handling dissent can be harsh, and on occasion has resulted in physical abuse. Such abuse is unacceptable, and we will take it up with the Korean authorities on your behalf if you so wish. You may also raise it with the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC).
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
Here is actual reality:
> "Hey Do, I just want to let you know, jail is not that bad," Shkreli said. "So don't fret – I hope it doesn't happen. If it does happen ... it's not that bad."
- Martin Shkreli
https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/11/08/pharma-bro-mart...
If it's over a decade, or violent/escape risk, then it's Leavenworth.
I've known folks that have done both.
Edit: per usual folks come out of the woodwork to accuse Ross of murder-for-hire despite the fact he was not convicted of any murder related charge, only generic conspiracies for which the overt act could have been a number of options (such as drug distribution). The jury never specifically said the overt act they convicted the conspiracy was murder for hire, yet the judge sentenced him as if he were guilty of that.
The fact that he didn’t know it was an undercover agent (pro tip if you hire a hit man and you aren’t customarily in ‘that life’ you are always hiring an undercover agent) is irrelevant.
He still required and received ‘proof’ of the deed, a photo of the aftermath, staged of course.
He was even cold blooded with the ‘collateral damage’ of the intended victims family being home when the hit was to go down.
All this was taken into account at sentencing.
The attempt to whitewash Ross into a sympathetic internet hero figure like Aaron Swartz is transparent and wrong.
They already got a life in prison and forfeiting $183,961,921 [0]. They don't need more, and there are other criminals to prosecute.
[0] https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/ross-ulbricht-aka-dread...
The better question is: "Why are people so insistant on whitewashing him?" Do they not think that hiring a contract killer is, like, no big deal? Do they regularly pretend to hire them? Are they just closing ranks around him because they think he's part of their in-tribe?
If you are convicted of certain crimes, your sentence -- even within the range appropriate for those crimes -- should not take into account other crimes that the person was suspected of committing, but it couldn't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
That's the entire point of evidentiary standards: in the first place, it's to avoid putting people in jail at all if we can't prove they did it to a particular level of confidence. But we should also not be inflating sentences (again, even if the end result is still within the guided range for the convicted crimes) just because we think they did other, worse things too.
Maybe Ulbrict did deserve a much longer sentence. But the prosecution apparently could not prove the more serious crimes. His sentence should not be influenced by things the prosecution could not prove. I'm sure there are other defendants who were convicted of crimes, but suspected of worse crimes that they didn't actually commit in reality. Maybe Ulbricht got what he deserved, but these other people got worse than they deserved.
> Do they not think that hiring a contract killer is, like, no big deal?
To sum up: what people think about this is entirely irrelevant. He was not convicted for hiring a contract killer, so that should have zero bearing on his sentence. Even if his sentence was in the range appropriate for what he was convicted for, it's a range, and if his sentence was pushed higher in that range because of other things the judge believed he did, that's not justice.
There does seem to be very little point in winning a conviction on that front.
I'm not sure where one is supposed to find sympathy for someone convicted of a crime, and looking likely to have attempted violent crimes, having their sentence strengthened on the latter's basis (within the confines of the primary sentence's guidelines).
Should Al Capone have been treated like a usual tax dodger? Of course not. He's a high risk to others in his prison as well as to society. We don't require beyond reasonable doubt for sentencing because it doesn't make sense.
Of course. Al Capone being cited so often is precisely why I believe he should have been treated like a usual tax dodger for the tax crimes and treated like a murderer for any murder convictions. I would much rather Al Capone go free than short-circuit justice in this way.
I'm failing to see the short circuiting. Tax dodging sentencing guidelines have a range. Capone was sentenced within that range. Same as Ulbricht. We don't re-hear a trial in front of a jury every time someone is sentenced because the jury has already rendered the verdict.
Sentencing is a complicated subject which balances not only justice, but also the safety of the prisoner and their fellow prisoners.
I can't say I'm thrilled that the standard is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, unless we find you guilty of some other element, in which case murder-for-hire magically becomes preponderance of evidence. I will say the justice system and society agrees with you, so I acknowledge this is one of those times I just have to sit here with a profound sadness about something over which I have little control.
You're dodging the fact that the sentence was given for the convicted crime within that crime's sentencing guidelines. Juries don't give sentences, judges do. What if not looking at additional factors do you think the judge is supposed to be doing?
If the crimes Ulbricht had been convicted of had a 10-year maximum, and the judge sentenced him to more on the basis of a preponderance of evidence, I'd see your point. But that isn't what happened.
That is, in the absence of suspicion of other crimes, he would have gotten a much less severe sentence.
I get that judges have to use all sorts of discretion when doing sentencing, and despite the "points system" around that, still have some leeway. My view is that judges should not be looking at other crimes that they may believe the defendant has committed -- even if they were not charged or not convicted -- and include that information in their sentencing decisions. I can't say for certain, of course, that's what happened here.
Maybe in Ulbrict's case, justice actually was served. Maybe he did those other things, and in a perfect world, sufficient evidence would have been found, and he would have been convicted of more serious charges. But we don't live in that perfect world, and for every Ulbricht who gets this "correct" treatment, there are certainly several others who get an overly-harsh sentence (still within guidelines, but harsher than is warranted) because people believe they did other stuff that couldn't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Presumably the implication here is that he was sentenced at the high end of that range. Was his sentence appropriate for the severity of his tax dodge, or was it pushed to the higher end of the range because of his other crimes, that he was never convicted of?
If the latter, then that's a real problem!
If you're convicted of crime X, you should be sentenced base on crime X, not on what other things everyone believes you actually did, but for which sufficient evidence can't be found to convict.
You seem to be advocating for a legal system where it's fine to punish people for things they haven't actually been convicted of doing. Regardless of what we may think of Al Capone, or "know" that he did, I think I would much rather let an Al-Capone-type off with the comparatively light sentence of a tax-dodger, than risk a harsh sentence for someone who didn't do the unproven things that people nevertheless "know" they did. Because of course that will happen.
So whether ross killed or distributed the drugs, he was guilty of X.
The genius of the conspiracy charge is the jury can be convinced of drug distribution but not the murder. And the judge could be convinced it was murder and not distribution. But they both fall under "bad stuff" so the judge isn't even wrong when they sentence him for "bad stuff" as murder is "bad stuff."
The fact that the elements of bad stuff for the judge is different than elements of bad stuff for the jury is almost an after thought. And hey, you can't say he didn't do bad stuff.
Taken this to the extreme, I wonder if someday they will have a crime that is just called "felony." The jury just has to be convinced you smoked a left handed cigarette, at which point obviously you're guilty of "felony." Then the judge can promptly forget about the cigarette and decide on preponderance of the evidence just what elemenst of "felony" you comitted and sentence that based on what she thinks is more likely than not.
This happens all the time. It is not unique to Ulbricht, and does not really imply anything about whether the contract killing request did or didn't happen.
The fact is the way "prosecution actually works" is you accuse someone of a generic conspiracy, show some element of the conspiracy was beyond a reasonable doubt true (like drug distribution), and then go to sentencing considering any element by preponderance of the evidence. It's a chilling short-circuiting of justice. Ross wasn't convicted of violent acts beyond a reasonable doubt, he was convicted of a continuing criminal enterprise where a judge thought it was more likely than not involved murder-for-hire.
That is literally the only point the ancestor poster was making: that if you have the means to run, it might not be so cushy a plan to turn yourself in for a non-violent crime, if you're assuming you'll get a sentence of less than 10 years at a reasonably safe low-security prison.
And in this particular case, the interesting point is: even if the prosecution didn't believe they could get a conviction for possible murder-for-hire charges, they somehow still got the desired final outcome: a sentence seemingly harsher than what would fit the crime he actually was convicted of.
(Then again, if your "only" crimes are non-violent/white-collar, maybe it is safe to assume you'll get a cushy prison sentence.)
white collar sentences are so long these days.
... what? Who are these people going out in a blaze of glory rather than returning to prison?
Considering there are millions of ex-cons, many who will be repeat offenders, we should be seeing many more of these people going out "guns blazing" rather than returning to prison, yeah? Or did you pull this fun fact from a viewing of The Town?
I'm honestly shocked I'm forced to even cite that this happens. Although I suppose if someone has lived in America and made it to adulthood without acknowledging the stories they aren't going to be convinced.
Plenty of shootings involving felons on parole in the news.
Say a news outlet says “X happened and it’s bad”. Another news outlet says “X happened and it’s good.” Both have their respective slant. Fine. But BOTH say X happened. Stuff that’s not newsworthy doesn’t go into news. You can’t just dismiss facts with prejudice as in “Don’t look up”.
Outliers are true in the sense of factual, but false in the sense of accurate. The "Don't Look Up" metaphor applied here would be that the media is telling you to look, when reality is that you shouldn't.
This returns a decent number of relevant and recent results:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=+shot+serving+warrant&iar=news&ia=...
Sure, 250 per year might support the statement "Almost every day in the US you see someone who decides to go out with guns blazing rather than go back", but that doesn't mean it's common.
Put another way, 250 people doing this per year could be considered "almost every day", but I'm not sure 250 people in a country of more than 350M doing something exceedingly, dangerously irrational is cause for concern, or even more than a shrug.
Also: your search result page doesn't say what you think it does. I clicked through a few of them, and many of them just talk about warrants in general (even search warrants, not arrest warrants) where no shooting occurred at all. On one of them I noticed that the word "shot" appeared in the "related stories" links at the bottom, in a case that had nothing to do with an arrest warrant or police.