The Government's Case

Today I read this very well researched article in Bitcoin Magazine about the Samourai Prosecution. I highly recommend it, as it points out the very real problems the prosecution has with the indictment. I have also been following The Rage's "Where's Waldo" like attempt to track down William Lonergan Hill (TDev), whose whereabouts since the indictment are unknown.

I Smell A Rat

The lack of a case file probably seems unusual to a lay person, but I'm not surprised. I believe there is a good possibility that Mr. Hill may be cooperating with the federal government. This is the norm in federal criminal proceedings. The fact is I don't recall any case I handled in the Southern District involving multiple defendants where no one cooperated. Federal criminal penalties are severe, and just about all cases wind up with guilty pleas rather than jury trials. Both the government and defense lawyers know this. Here, it would be unrealistic to expect the defendants to be "stand up guys" for the sake of bitcoin. They and their lawyers are probably worried about their families and their freedom, not the future of self custody. I could be wrong, but in case I'm right, allow me to speculate as to how this case may play out.
Under US Federal Sentencing Guidelines, defendants can earn what is commonly known as a 5K letter, which gives the judge discretion to impose a very lenient sentecne if the defendant provides "material assistance to the government" in this case or other cases. The defendant must plead guilty to get this benefit. In the sleazy world of horse trading known as plea bargaining, the rule is you must net "a bigger fish." Therefore, I doubt one of these defendants would cooperate against the other, unless one of them was actually assisting a third party to launder actual criminal proceeds. More likely, Mr. Hill could offer the government a treasure trove of "criminals" who used the mixer for "criminal" purposes. I am ignorant of the technical aspects of the samourai wallet and its mixing capabilities, so I'm not sure whether this is possible by just examining transactions. If not, the cooperation would have to be based on actual communications with individuals who expressed criminal intent.

The Sword Of Damacles

Regardless of how this is done, it will likely be a bad outcome for bitcoin. If other cases are now being investigated, this case will be dragged out until those cases are prosecuted. This is because the government may need the cooperating witness to testify at trial.
Whether intentional or not, this scenario would accomplish exactly what the government seems to want. The chilling effect on the bitcoin industry has already been substantial. Developers will work for years while wondering whether their project will be targeted next. Questions about what constitutes a money transmitter will remain unresolved. At the same time, there is no trial, where the defense can present the obvious and powerful defenses that are explained well in the article I linked above. I know this is a grim scenario. I may be completely wrong, since I am speculating. On the other hand, it's not far fetched. It would be the normal outcome of a case in federal court.
We need a strong defense for Bitcoiners. We actually need some type of pool or federation or a trust that will be readily available to defend genuine Bitcoiners.
I always listen some voices for a fund to safeguard Bitcoiners when some bitcoiner is forced into jail. But in a matter of a few days, all become silent.
For this purpose, I would suggest that we create a trust or organisation to defend Bitcoiners in the lawsuits. There should be only one condition that 'only those will be defended who are genuine and who are a member of the Bitcoin defenders trust/pool/organisation.
reply
reply
That's Jack Dorsey's fund. He decides who to defend and who not to. I mean it very differently. I want it to be an open sourced platform where people working on Bitcoin projects can join and create a pool of funds (a big pool where people can donate funds), shouldn't be under control of 1 or a few people. 'Who to defend' should also be taken unanimously. I hope you understand now...
reply
I do. Keep in mind one thing when you are talking about criminal defense. There are real and unresolvable conflict of interest scenarios. A criminal defense lawyer's loyalty must be to his client. It is not to those who paid the legal fees. You can see this play out when drug rings hire lawyers for their mules, mafia families for their soldiers. There is an expectation that the defendant won't hurt the organization. That is a major problem for lawyers and their clients. This was highlighted more than once in the tv show Breaking Bad. Saul wasn't very concerned with ethics.
reply
I haven't watched that tv show and my knowledge of legal proceedings isn't that great. But I understood your point and completely agree to it.
However, I insist that we should try to build some kind of open sourced funding/pool that will defend bitcoiners against the governments.
reply
That's a worthy goal.
reply
I felt alot of panic amongst the community when this happened, but on Bitcoin Twitter, I felt alot of this uproar has died down. Not good - the uproar should be just as loud. This is extremely damaging to the mental health of the developers, but furthermore, some people are likely asking themselves in the U.S. why should I even start here, when I can just buy a ticket to Singapore where it is friendly towards my development?
reply
It's human nature to put unpleasant events out of mind.
reply
brave clown world of 1984
reply
Excellent article. Thanks for sharing this. It is indeed chilling and already damaging to the developer community. It defies logic that wallet software that never takes possession of keys or a single sat can be considered a money transmitter when the postal service literally transmits cash through its network regularly, does no KYC whatsoever, and never faces any legal issue at all.
And of course banks get charged with money laundering regularly where they are actually taking profits and paying their executives massive bonuses, but we never see their executives face real prison time.
  • Wachovia Bank, which was later acquired by Wells Fargo, was implicated in laundering money for Mexican drug cartels. Settlement: In 2010, Wachovia agreed to pay $160 million in fines and penalties as part of a deferred prosecution agreement.
  • In 2012, HSBC agreed to pay $1.9 billion in fines and penalties, one of the largest settlements in a money laundering case.
  • In 2014, BNP Paribas agreed to pay $8.9 billion in penalties.
  • Deutsche Bank was implicated in a Russian money laundering scheme known as the “mirror trading” scheme, which moved $10 billion out of Russia.
  • JPMorgan Chase was accused of failing to maintain adequate controls to prevent money laundering, particularly in connection with the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme. Settlement: In 2014, JPMorgan agreed to pay $2.6 billion to settle the charges.
and that list goes on and on...
Uncontested, this legal hammer will be applied selectively to any Bitcoin target they choose.
reply
I believe, if one is not mistaken, that justice is served in any case, even if it is delayed. There have always been many fronts opened against the government, which still continue today after they have been legalised.
reply
Whether intentional or not, this scenario would accomplish exactly what the government seems to want.
You're right. Government will win it easily. There's exactly Noone or no organisation that can raise questions about the injustice of government on innocent Bitcoin people.
reply
You insight is appreciated… speculative or not. Looks like the Federal Government wins this round..
reply
Excellent post as usual sir. Thank you for your perspective.
reply
Thanks -- as a lay person, I appreciate the inside view.
If not, the cooperation would have to be based on actual communications with individuals who expressed criminal intent.
I feel like this is the best outcome for Bitcoin and techies in general -- if they plead guilty to working with (maybe even selling tools/access to) criminals who made their criminal intent clear, that removes the concern over the notion of "criminal" computer code, right?
reply
Yes. I agree. What really bothers me are that serious questions raised by the indictment may remain unresolved for a long time.
reply
Crowd funded Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund needed?
reply
I think so. I believe there might be another one in existence besides Jack's. I'll do some research.
reply