Criminal Complaint against Ross Ulbricht aka "Dread Pirate Roberts" [pdf]
krebsonsecurity.com
krebsonsecurity.com
(Alice claims to owe money to Bob, who Alice represents as a drug dealer. Alice threatens to expose SR users unless DPR pays Alice's debt with Bob. DPR asks to speak to Bob. Bob messages DPR. DPR attempts to recruit Bob to be a drug dealer on SR and, separately, asks if Bob can arrange for the murder of Alice. Bob quotes a price, which DPR says is twice the last price that DPR has arranged a murder at. DPR eventually agrees to the price, pays, and instructs Bob to take a photograph of the corpse with a random alphanumeric string in the frame, to ascertain that the photograph was indeed produced after the request. Bob reports that the murder is complete and sends the photograph, which DPR accepts as genuine. The affiant believes the likely conclusion -- that Alice and Bob are the same person and that DPR has been successfully extorted to the tune of $150,000 or so.)
The game theory of scam artists is really simple: your expected probability of scam N+1 working goes way the heck up if you've successfully worked that mark in scam N. That's why you can literally find people selling lists of folks who've fallen for 419 scams.
Edit: To to clear, DPR could have well assumed it was the same party and figured this was one way to negotiate, instead of saying "ok, how about $200K instead of $500K"?
I guess it depends on whether you're factoring in the "on trial for attempted murder" angle.
After all, if friendlychemist did in fact have information on thousands of drug dealers, he ought to be able to get a pretty good asking price from the government, so why would he even contact Ulbricht in this scenario?
What DPR should have done is had his team of admins hellban the guy everytime he tried to spam the forums with names so he could waste his time however DPR never seemed to give a shit about the forum even though it was his brand being represented there.
This is why Max Vision spied on all his buyers/users because if they ever tried to extort him in the same manner he would promptly reveal that he's been inside their systems for months and knew exactly who they were.
> The FBI works undercover on an average of 70 to 90 murder-for-hire cases a year. According to bureau press releases, recent quoted fees have ranged from $25,000 to kill a spouse to $600 to kill a girlfriend ... A few years ago, the Australian Institute of Criminology and South Australia's major crime-investigation branch studied 163 attempted and actual contract killings between 1989 and 2002. The average rate received was 12,700 Australian dollars, or about $8,254. The lowest was 380 AUD (about $250), and the highest was 76,000 AUD (about $49,400).
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/20...
Supposing AB had real information that would be harmful to DPR if released, it's in DPR's interest to prevent this release. One major risk is that even if he pays, he is still susceptible to future extortion. His approach sends a message to AB (true or not) that he is a casual killer, and that it would be an unwise risk to attempt this stunt a second time.
It also further implicates AB in DPR's crimes: in the same way that DPR will have great trouble explaining in court that he was not actually arranging a murder but deterring an extortionist, it would be unwise to try to argue in court that one accepted money to commit a murder, but is innocent because the murder was not actually performed due to a complicated backstory.
Also, the extended negotiation provides DPR more opportunity to discover more information about his adversary --- rather like the 'try to keep them on the line so we can trace the call' trope. It seems likely that if there is any substance to the accusation, that AB is a Silk Road seller and not a third party. Perhaps this dance helps DPR to gain more information so as to take future action against this seller? Or buys time so as to warn others that their buyer information is compromised?
The Canadian Investigators say that nobody by that name ever existed and that there were no homicides or deaths which they can attach to this alleged hit.
You can't commit an impossible crime. I can't murder your sister if you don't have a sister.
It's highly likely that both the hitman and the hit were the same FBI informant entrapping DPR.
But I believe you can conspire to murder my sister, even if I don't have a sister.
So whilst there was conspiracy it was not against a person and there was never a plan to harm an actual person. Despite there being the mens rea in the conspirators there's no crime, just moral turpitude.
It seems that if the conspiracy were against a person who never existed and were adjudged to be a crime that writers would be similarly guilty when they plan a storyline in which someone is purposefully killed. Of course there is a significant epistemological difference for the writer.
Fascinating.
In any given sting operation, the John gets arrested, bt there was never any prostitute. The arrest occurs on the basis that, if there were a prostitute, the John would participate in the exchange. Then, at that point, he's dragged before a judge or jury, and they don't really care about the crime, they just want this guy off the street based on the character assasination. The layman/plebian juror doesn't need to involve any sophisticated thought process, because his goal is to clock out of his "civic duty" by 5PM on the dot. The patrician judge is permitted the luxury of aloof detachment, and is a fallible human being. A person with a social life, biases and any other human weaknesses, despite whatever image or persona they may project into their social sphere of influence.
It doesn't really matter whether the sting is a bomb plot, drug deal, or a setup for hookers, Johns and online chat room predators. The maguffin is there to demonstrate intent, and prove that police are doing there job, the streets are safer, when this slob gets thrown in jail, and branded with a scarlet letter.
But the slob is real, and more often than not, simply being placed in the hot seat is enough for judge and jury to usually be swayed in favor of a conviction. It really doesn't take much for a person to get slapped with a jail sentence. Neither imaginary crimes nor genuine crimes weigh heavily on the mind of your typical juror. Or rather, to the juror, all crimes are essentially the same degree of fiction.
They are tales of intrigue presented to strangers who play the role of critic for a day, while attending the performance of fatal charades.
What are you so bitter about?
I see where you're coming from however it is "soliciting" which is the crime and the perp commits that crime against someone - they just happen not to be a prostitute. At least that's how it plays out in the media.
With the [attempted] assassination of an individual you can't have a sting because the main conspirator targets a specific individual [but you can have a sting on a conspiracy charge, so I see how it applies]. It's not like they find their target's not there and decide to just kill a random person. They are only ever concerned with killing a specific person. Now if that specific person doesn't exist then there can't be a killing.
With the bomb plot, drug deal, prostitution, child abuser the targets are generalised. The particular nature of the stooge isn't important to the potential perpetrator.
If I tell you there's a bank in my town, then we plan a heist, then it turns out that there's no bank. What crime have you committed?
[I'm not totally sold on this line I'm presenting incidentally - but thanks for the response anyhow.]
As with any crime, it was committed against the State.
> If you pretend to have a sister and I order a hit on that figment of your imagination then have I committed a crime?
Yes.
> So whilst there was conspiracy it was not against a person
In the US (and, for that matter, most of the rest of the world) crimes don't have to be "against a person". England went through a few years in the late 1970s where a conspiracy to commit an impossible act was not a crime, but specifically amended the 1977 law which a 1978 court case found implied that effect to remove it in 1981; to my knowledge the impossibility of the prohibited agreed-to act has never been a bar to conspiracy convictions in the US.
> It seems that if the conspiracy were against a person who never existed and were adjudged to be a crime that writers would be similarly guilty when they plan a storyline in which someone is purposefully killed.
A writer planning a story line involves neither two or more people agreeing to commit an unlawful act nor one of taking a concrete action to put that agreement into effect, and so contains neither of the elements of the general crime of conspiracy, independently of the impossibility issue. So, no, they wouldn't be guilty of conspiracy, independently of the issue at hand.
Conspiracy to commit murder doesn't require an actual murder to be committed, so, no, this isn't really all that relevant to the charge.
An agreement between two or more people to commit an act which would be unlawful if the agreed-to end was realized and any one of those people taking even one concrete step toward putting the agreement into effect makes a conspiracy. (Except under the separate US federal narcotics conspiracy law, where, IIRC, the concrete act is not required.)
>an act which would be unlawful if the agreed-to end was realized //
If the person on whom the hit is called is fictional the agreed to end can't be realised. Even if it were in some way able to be realised [you pretend the person exists or don't know until the end of the act] the action itself wouldn't be unlawful except in and of itself. For example if you blew up a bridge to kill a person, but the person was made-up all along then you'd still be guilty of criminal damage and potentially of injury to bystanders and such but you wouldn't be guilty of murder. Not even attempted murder [IMV] as there was no person you tried to murder, you tried to murder an idea of a person.
Like I said in another post I see the moral deficiencies [evidenced by the mens rea (guilty mind)] in a person willing to be involved in such a conspiracy but it still appears to me to lack an actus reus which AFAICT is a cornerstone of criminal law based on the English tradition.
Your postscript on USA federal narcotics law is interesting - doesn't this mean that if you plan something with no intent that you'd be considered guilty. Would Vince Gilligan not then be guilty of drug crimes as he has planned many illegal activities they just apparently all lacked corresponding actions.
Yes, that's the impossibility issue, which, as I've noted, is not generally in US law (and similar, but for a 3-4 year window ending in 1981, English law) relevant to whether the crime of conspiracy has been committed. The fact that it can't be realized is irrelevant to whether it would be a crime if it was realized.
> it still appears to me to lack an actus reus which AFAICT is a cornerstone of criminal law based on the English tradition.
The actus reus in conspiracy (both under the common law and the generally applicable modern English and American statutory provisions) is comprised of two things: an agreement among multiple people, and a concrete action directed toward putting the agreement into effect. Those are both acts, not mental states.
> Your postscript on USA federal narcotics law is interesting - doesn't this mean that if you plan something with no intent that you'd be considered guilty.
No, removing one of the required acts doesn't change the mens rea requirements, nor does it change the other required act; one person planning is not conspiracy (even under the federal narcotics provision that remove the second element.) Two or more people agreeing to some end whose realization would be another crime is the element that is required.
It's shorter, and it has details on a second murder-for-hire plot.
- The fact that the SSH KEY on the server was for frosty@frosty.com which was the same thing he changed his Stackoverflow profile to..
- The fact that he asked on stackoverflow how to curl over tor
- The fact that he apparently tried to promote Silk Road on two forums
This stuff certainly points towards him being the guy, but is this evidence enough ?
<BreakingBadSPOILER>And I'm asking this 'cause Jessie's video confession to Hank wasn't enough to get Walt... </BreakingBadSPOILER>
What the document tantalizingly avoids is how they managed to find out where the Silk Road servers are. It mysteriously states that there are several Silk Road servers around the world and the FBI gained access and got an image of the server through cooperation with one of the hosts. How did they get to the servers behind the Tor network ? This is a very interesting technical question and honestly, I'm impressed.
Following the whole Kim Dotcom debacle I'd like to see how this seriously loaded ($90MM) guy progresses through the justice system.
However, the document doesn't seem to state who the VPN provider was or if he was the customer tied to the VPN account (probably avoids this info because the VPN is account is in someone else's name). So again, can't prove via this route that it was him.
I'm curious to know how they managed to find the Silk Road server though..
That is not, by any measure, careful. That's awful OPSEC, and what got him in the end. He thought Tor to be inconveniently "slow", and used VPN instead.
It won't help him if the US can seize the money - they do so whenever possible, to prevent defendants from affording a competent defence.
Do you honestly believe that proposed harm is worse for society than sham trials, where we're getting convictions simply because people can't defend themselves properly?
After you starting dealing with the 'experienced rich' you find they start becoming skilled in hiding such financial resources. It's even harder when it's an entire multi-national organization and you are not an English speaking country or China. It's the story of marrying a wealthy daughter of some incredibly wealthy family, and finding out in the divorce she only has $5000 to her actual name, and your the one who will be paying alimony to her.
Going to the root of the problem in the first place, how do these large criminal organizations even exist? It's because government law going against technological reality have created large market opportunities to exploit in the first place. Governments have created the fertile land for these creatures to exist.
To be intellectually honest about this specific case we're discussing, DPR did by definition commit most of the drug charges. Even if you believe the only morally problematic charge is 5.b of count 1 (that the defendant hired a hitman to murder a troublesome user--I do hope you find that charge problematic!), which is certainly only alleged at this point, it is fact that the Silk Road aided and abetted drug trafficking, which is criminal in the U.S.
So while I certainly agree that people need to be entitled to a competent defense (and I am glad DPR will have competent attorneys to dispute the murder charge), emphasizing the alleged nature of a criminal conspiracy that we realistically know to be largely true doesn't seem to be the best place to focus on rights of the accused. In reality, the vast majority of people wrongfully convicted are going to be the ones who can't afford competent defense. So to me this case almost raises the opposite question from yours: if the prosecution of guilty defendants is undermined by their being able to afford better attorneys than the government, and if the defense of wrongfully accused defendants is undermined by their inability to afford competent defense, then we've got bigger problems with the nature of criminal trials!
Edit: updated the article to reflect that Ulbricht is only allegedly DPR
The rest of your post I have some difficulty with. It's almost as though you're saying we don't even need a trial here because the facts are so obviously established. I don't believe it's yet been established in a court of law that any crime was committed, much less that this person committed it.
Agreed, but that would either bankrupt the government or make defense attorney a much less lucrative career and, therefore, greatly decrease the number of available defense attorneys.
> It's almost as though you're saying we don't even need a trial here because the facts are so obviously established. I don't believe it's yet been established in a court of law that any crime was committed, much less that this person committed it.
Not at all what I meant. On the contrary, I meant that cases when we the outside viewers realistically know that the defendant isn't clean are probably not the best cases for highlighting the need for a competent defense.
It should not in general be in the best interests of the federal court system to allow federal prosecutors to abuse asset seizures to prevent defendants from mounting competent defenses. Among other things, such abuses set judges up for costly appeals.
>>> It should not in general be in the best interests of the federal court system to allow federal prosecutors to abuse asset seizures to prevent defendants from mounting competent defenses. Among other things, such abuses set judges up for costly appeals.
It is very well in the interest of the prosecutors, in order to extort plea bargain. And appealing the guilty plea would probably have a very low chance for success.
So yes, "we've got bigger problems".
Certainly you're not suggesting that seizure is a valid response before they've been tried and found guilty and penalties are assessed?
Seizure is not a just way to hack the system back into a functional state.
Yes, if you believe you're going to end up in court, and having lots of money is useful for defeating charges, then yes, you should try to get money. That seems pretty simple and not worthy of enacting seizure laws.
If the justice system is so broken that people guilty of massive crimes can pay $50M and get out of charges, then THAT needs to be fixed. You're not seriously suggesting that seizure is a just way to hack around a broken system?
You may be innocent of the charges. If you are, you should get the assets back. To the extent that asset forfeiture makes that process fraught, that's a problem that deserves careful scrutiny.
I submit that I don't sound "amoral" so much as that I don't have exactly the same set of biases that most vocal people on HN seem to have. I don't start from the premise that all prosecution is unjust or malicious; in fact, I think I start from the opposite premise. So when something happens like "all the assets of a business are seized as part of a prosecution", I ask myself, "why would people who have chosen to spend a significant part of their life working at sub-market compensation to help fight crime choose to do that?" Sometimes the answers seem clear to me; in other cases, like the Carmen Ortiz-managed prosecution of Aaron Swartz, they are less clear.
[1] Social / political / judicial / law enforcement things in particular. You've argued lots of times about how things can be positively changed wrt crypto, security etc.
PS: I don't think it's bias. Your perspective is also biased; it's just differently biased than the group average here. Your perspective is welcome and often refreshing.
What I mean is, are we talking about somebody using their fortune to bribe and buy witnesses? Use their wealth to construct alibis?
Or are we talking about somebody using their fortune to hire a better lawyer than the DOJ can hire? Hire better expert witnesses than the DOJ can hire?
If all of the transactions are legitimate and all that money bought him was a world-class defense.. then I say "tough noogies" to the DOJ. Being able to afford the next Johnnie Cochran doesn't seem problematic to me; the only thing that concerns me is that poor people cannot receive a similarly competent defense.
It's incredibly cash-intensive, you effectively declare legal nuclear war and just go all out. It's virtually impossible to counter without special legislation already in place to counter exactly that sort of threat, e.g. anti-SLAPP laws.
For example, a defense lawyer could offer reduced hourly rates but include a bonus payment at the end to skew the 1:1 comparison.
In addition, party A can affect the spending of party B, which is part of what's being complained about. Because motions filed by party A can cause party B's costs to rise significantly to the point where their operation is hindered. So it most likely then becomes a race to the top, which once again will benefit the party with the larger war chest up until all assets are used up.
A set percentage of assets would feel better in my opinion, though in extreme cases it would probably still be a pretty penny.
The real problem here is that the prosecution strategy is, "prevent the defendant from exercising their rights." That is why prosecutors typically pile up the charges, to scare people into signing a plea bargain instead of exercising their right to a jury trial. Basically, these are people who think the Ox-Bow Incident was a criminal justice field guide.
When my dad was indicted by the FBI, part of the process (because he was a fugitive) was for them to seize all his funds. This was personally problematic because his funds were also my mom's funds (due to having a joint account); which left my mom very suddenly with no money, and two children (one of which, me, being a newborn).
I got the distinct impression (which I admit was based on only hearing one side of the story) that the FBI intentionally made life difficult for my mom in an effort to entice her cooperation in locating my dad (ignoring the fact that a husband who flees on the day of his son's birth to avoid prosecution from the FBI isn't necessarily in said wife's good graces).
I don't have a good answer to this problem.
I talked a little bit more about my dad's situation in a comment a while back: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3067094
Your defense, in the eyes of the law (makers?) Is fully garanteed by the State. You dont need money for top notch defense. Right?
So any meaningful proposal here isn't about actual ill-gained funds, its about alleged ill-gained funds, and that's the source of the problem.
In those cases, usually you can distinguish ill-gained funds from rightful property only after the court decision, and the presumption of innocence would require allowing the innocent to spend his property on the defence until (and if) [s]he is convicted.
Anyone rich knows that laundering money is a purchase and sale away: art, jewelry, plane, barge, etc.
As long as there are one or more parties disincentivized or unconcerned with participating in taxation, people will find ways to avoid handing over large sums of cash and "let the little people pay taxes." (Yup, that's how some view it.)
How about a large finders % fee for reporting cheats? Or would NARCing render it moot by social and business pressures?
There is a known procedure that asserts control over person's or entity's finances without actually destroying their ability to conduct business - namely, bankruptcy. So, it is possible. It can be done also for the case of criminal prosecution - the funds are controlled by independent judge which allows the payments that look like legal expenses or other necessary expenses (e.g. if the defendant doesn't have money to buy food). Of course, this can be abused too, but major cases of abuse would be caught and all involved would be prosecuted, as with any law.
So I don't see the necessity to immediately block all assets for somebody prosecuted for criminal conspiracy. I think it is done with sole purpose of making life easier for law enforcement by denying the defendant the capability to hire expensive lawyers that would insist on making life hard for the prosecution.
That would be quite the presumption.
I agree that there is a potential for abuse, but I'm not sure I want to return to the bad old days where rich organized criminals could totally swamp prosecutors.
The Dread Pirate Roberts seems to have thought he was invincible and did not take such precautions, of course.
Another poster suggests "spending enormous amounts of money on prosecutions" to counter drug funds. This is problematic because the drug trade is massive, with the market for cocaine alone estimated at >$100B/yr; estimates indicate that the illegal drug market could account for as much as 1% of all global economic activity. For comparison the NSA's budget is about $70B/yr and the DEA is more like $25B/yr.
The parallels between the show and what just happened with this Ross guy are pretty mind blowing.. ($80MM is a key point, then the fact about him turning from a 'nice justice oriented dude' to a total bad guy)
Yes.
He has been living in the Mission for $1000/month with roommates. I doubt he's liquid.
Cashing out that many bitcoins is hard, doing it anonymously is harder and then laundering it so that you can deposit it a bank account harder still. I can't even imagine what kind of scheme is necessary to do that. You can't just claim your local business somehow made $40 million in cash this year.
1. Committing crime is very easy. Not getting caught is hard
2. When it comes to gathering evidence, you're only as good as your biggest screw-up
I believe this is just an arrest warrant, rather than the full set of evidence they will be using to using to prosecute. Whilst the links between the elements may seem tenuous, that's exactly how forensic investigations work, and I often use similar techniques as part of investigations
By analysing traffic flow as they access SR - eg by also having access to major carriers - wouldn't they be able to just push in packets and see where they pop out (to be facile about it)?
I read in another thread that they're reported to have hacked PHP to expose a vulnerability that gave them an admin IP address that was being allowed through the firewall. Seems reasonable.
Unsurprisingly, in the complaint there is no suggestion that a law enforcement officer was behind the threats to expose silk road accounts, such threats therefore appear to be from a private citizen, and not subject to the entrapment defense.
Further, simply agreeing to pay to have someone killed (whether they are eventually killed or not) is sufficient to be found guilty of conspiracy to murder, and significant jail time.
However, while we don't know who issued those threats, we do know that (apparently) no one was harmed as a result of the contracted "hit" being executed, despite the defendant receiving a picture of an apparent execution.
It is the discrepancy between the apparent killing and the lack of a body that raises my suspicion that there was no actual threat and no actual killing.
Edit: It occurred to me that investigators could set-up such a "sting" not specifically to entrap the defendant into a murder charge, but to provide a clear and traceable link between him and a higher-level involvement in the running of silk road, which was manifestly illegal.
What's interesting is that I don't see any charges listed in the indictment for these hitman claims!
Well, so much for that: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/182368464/dpr-maryland-i...
But I admit I'd still watch the first episode to find out.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/10/02/end-of-...
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/oct/02/alleged-si...
Edit: updated whitespace
If you read the complaint, they actually make sure to point out that agents had drugs shipped to that district to proves that it's valid.
Fine, but the site sells and even has categories for things like hitman services, ATM skimmers, fraud how-to pamphlets, and lists of stolen credit cards.
"Morality may not be legality" is a trendy thing to say but there's significant overlap, and that statement is meaningless anyway when much of the behaviour that we're on about is both immoral and illegal
DPR himself may have been a mean guy, assuming there is anything to this alleged murder-for-hire plot. The reality of the situation, however, is that a much greater harm has been done to society by drug prohibition itself. Millions of people incarcerated, millions of people exposed to drugs of unknown quality, and a widespread trend of soldiers attacking civilian homes in the name of the drug war. The DEA has the power to simply declare drugs to be illegal, then arrest people who possess them. The DEA is not only a police force, but also a military force (even receiving help from NORAD and the NSA) and an intelligence agency. People in foreign lands and here in the United States are being killed by our government in the name of this prohibition.
Do not think for a moment that the law is some kind of moral compass. Drug laws have a sordid history of racism, corporate hand-outs, and widespread corruption.
But hey, no need for honesty to enter the debate. Not when it undermines betterunix's precious libertarian religion.
The libertarian religion is so strong that the Libertarians on this site are, predictably, not just defending SR. They're lying about what was on it, defending the hiring of hitmen, and generally making clear that Libertarianism is solely about self-interest and has ZERO underlying ethical frameworks.
1. Dosage are 30x smaller 2. Users can tell the difference
I have no doubt in my mind that meth ruins lives.
Legalization can't change this. What it might change is a shift towards less dangerous drugs to mob up the recreational drug market. SR however is not even slightly going in this direction, so the whole objection to the criminal nature of silk road is baseless.