[ALittleLight]

You think they could convict on "We looked at a thousand accounts and his was the most suspicious?"

If you don't leave evidence for a targeted inspection against you, it wouldn't help them to be able to narrow it down to "you probably did it" if they couldn't clear the "reasonable doubt" hurdle.

[xsmasher]

No, but it's enough to get a warrant for data or surveillance until they have enough evidence to build a case. They need to clear "probable cause" not "reasonable doubt."

[JumpCrisscross]

> If you don't leave evidence for a targeted inspection against you

Regulators already surveil and request records in respect of trading activity following corporate actions. No warrant needed.

[ALittleLight]

No, I mean that you don't leave evidence for a targeted inspection against you to find. i.e. You execute the hack cleanly, the inspection against you finds nothing, and all they are left with is your suspicious trade, which is suspicious, but not prosecutable.

[anonAndOn]

Before you're even under surveillance, you have to be perfect in leaving no fingerprints for XX years before/after and they only need you to screw up OPSEC once. Easy?

[ALittleLight]

You just have to leave no evidence of the hack that links to you, but you have to do that anyway to get away.

There's nothing to hide after the fact. Dump the burner computer you used for the hack when you're done and never log in to the accounts, VPNs and VPSs you used again.

That you have the money is an open and legal fact, so you don't have to conceal anything really.

[ponker]

The government has executed innocent people, I don't know why it would be so hard to imagine getting a conviction on circumstantial evidence.

[yungmodulus]

Agreed. There are people in jail at this very moment, not because they were convicted of a crime, but because they couldn’t pay bail to get out.