[from]

Plea hearing is fun reading: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.58...

> So, Mr. Zhong, the statute of limitations for the crime you're charged with in the information is five years. Accordingly, you could argue that the time to prosecute you for this crime has passed, and that the crime is now time barred; you can no longer be prosecuted. Have you discussed this with Mr. Bachner?

> THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor.

> THE COURT: And is it true that you agree to waive any statute of limitations defense you might have with respect to this charge in the information?

> THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor.

For some reason this bug was not as sophisticated as I thought it was:

> THE DEFENDANT: ...In September of 2012, after using the site just once or twice, I decided I no longer wanted to buy anything else from Silk Road and decided to withdraw my bitcoin from the website. While doing so, I accidentally double-clicked the withdraw button and was shocked to discover that it resulted in allowing me to withdraw double the amount of bitcoin I had deposited

His sentencing submission is also interesting: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.58...

> After Jimmy took the Bitcoin from Silk Road, Ross Ulbricht contacted Jimmy over the Silk Road messaging service and asked him to explain how he accessed the Bitcoin. After Jimmy told him what he did, Ulbricht never asked Jimmy to return the coins. Rather, he thanked Jimmy for his candor and sent him, unsolicited, additional Bitcoin. Silk Road’s response to Jimmy’s conduct is hardly the response of a victim.

> The Government notes that Jimmy waited around four months from the date of the search to turn over control of the Bitcoin to the Government

> Although the Government had seized the physical device needed to control most of the Bitcoin, the Government had no way to use that device to control the Bitcoin without Mr. Zhong’s cooperation. Jimmy gave the Government, with no promise of anything in return, the keys and tools needed to take control of billions of dollars’ worth of Bitcoin—control that the Government would not have been able to gain without Jimmy’s cooperation

Psychological report: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.58...

> He recalled converting some of his Bitcoin into $700,000 in cash. He stated he did this so that he would have a “case full of money like in the movies.” He hoped the visual appeal of the cash would impress a female into having sexual relations with him. He stated his plan did not work.

Government was fairer than usual in their sentencing submission, only asked for 24 months. Honestly this whole story just makes me kind of sad. Also makes me wonder why he even agreed to give up the coins.

[lazide]

The worst part IMO? That the suitcase of cash didn’t work.

[CoastalCoder]

> The worst part IMO? That the suitcase of cash didn’t work.

As a parent of young men, I'm glad it didn't work. IMHO it would have been bad for the character development of both parties.

[yieldcrv]

Its silly he lacks this much awareness, it reads like he just wanted to be rid of the burden because he can’t figure anything social out

People don’t even need actual bitcoin, they just leave their phone wallet open on a watch address while they “go to the bathroom” on a date, and let their nosy date take the bait and watch the tune change in real time

Money still overrides other preferences and exacerbates poor character development across genders, it just means his way was so bad…. Carrying around suitcases wow.

[lazide]

In my experience, someone committing crimes like this has a fundamental issue with their emotional self regulatory ability. Money enables coping mechanisms (well, clearly just sometimes like in this case!) that otherwise wouldn’t be available. It is also a general motivator, as you note, for folks to do all sorts of things for someone besides general emotional coping type stuff. Like get a house, or whatever.

Chances are his social dysfunction really stems from something deep he’s refusing to look at and acknowledge; and it’s feeding all these behaviors maladaptively. He probably had one particular person he wanted the validation he saw as coming from sex with, and that’s why the suitcase.

Especially since, quite frankly, if he just wanted to get laid and had cash, it’s not like it would take that much looking to find someone to help him with that and it wouldn’t involve more than a small handful of bills. If he could get his act somewhat together, anyway.

[lazide]

At the point he's heisted several billion dollars of bitcoin (or anything really), I think it's a bit late to be worrying about that.

[8organicbits]

The other person didn't.

[lazide]

Good point! The baggage is never just what’s in the suitcase (or just the cash, as it were), and (to be serious) glad the other person saw that too. The unimaginable degree of shit that they would be accepting if they took it would be mind boggling.

My guess is that because the other party is not the type of person who would have sex for even a suitcase of cash with them, is why the perp wanted them so much they tried a suitcase of cash.

[rvba]

> THE COURT: All right. I find that Mr. Zhong has knowingly and voluntarily waived both venue as well as any argument here that the crime charged in the information is time barred.

How does this even work?

So can the defendant "knowingly and voluntarily" give up their right to defend via Constitution?

[mbreese]

It's part of a plea agreement. In a plea agreement the defendant gives up certain rights in exchange for other sentencing considerations.

They were worried they'd get a worse sentence at trial, so they plead to get a better deal. They didn't just give up their rights...

[DangitBobby]

It sounds like they did give up their rights! Or else!

Sorry, but there's no reading of it where a plea deal isn't threatening unreasonable punishment if you refuse to forfeit your rights.

[paulpauper]

that is how it works. plea guilty or else roll the dice and likely spend a huge time in jail

[tadfisher]

Federal prosecutors have a 95% conviction rate. I'd take the bargain as well.

[jahewson]

That includes the pleas though. It’s 83% for the cases that make it to trial. Still not great odds.

[PaulRobinson]

I'm not a lawyer, but I've known people go through the (similar, in the UK), mill of prosecution and read/watched enough about some cases to get a sense of how it might play out behind the scenes.

Let's step back, and see if you still think this is "give up your right! Or else!"

The prosecutors are 50/50 on getting a conviction. If they win, they're sure they're going to see the defendant go to prison for, say, 10 years. If they lose, the defendant walks, and thanks to the fifth amendment (almost everywhere in the World has double jeopardy protection), unless substantial new evidence emerges, they'll never get to prosecute this individual again. They're pretty sure they have everything they'll ever find, so this is it.

The defendant and his legal team are 50/50 on getting an acquittal. If they win, it's over. If they don't, it's 10 years in prison which is pretty awful.

The trial is going to be expensive for both sides. The prosecution will work to get the odds in their favour, the defendant's legal team will be trying to figure out how to get it in their favour, and so on.

This process is expensive, and eventually the taxpayer is going to pay. Even if the proceeds from the crime have been recovered and sold, the money going into public funds is going to come right back out again to prosecute, and if the defendant has nothing and can't afford their own legal bills, the taxpayer is paying both sides.

Everybody - and I mean everybody - knows the defendant did what he did.

There are interviews that are barely credible, paper trails of assets moving, lots of evidence of obfuscation and trying to cover tracks, but there's confusion in the story about intent to commit a crime.

The judge might decide to throw it out on statute of limitations, a jury might look at the psych reports and think the kid seems nice and naive and not the criminal type, so let's believe his story.

It's a bit of a mess.

Neither side really fancies were this going because there is concern you're setting off a train of case law, too - as a prosecutor do you really want to test statute of limitations if the person wasn't "fleeing from justice", but just enjoying some money he came into? That defence lawyer really looks like he fancies his day in the Supreme Court...

Meanwhile, the clock - and publicly funded meter - is ticking.

Prosecutor approaches defence. "Plead guilty, we wrap this up, your guy gets 5 years instead of 10. Parole eligible at 3 years".

Defence retorts "2 years, suspended".

Prosecutor comes back "2 years, no suspension, no parole, but time served taken into account".

"Deal". The judge gets a call. He decides to make sure there is no risk of an appeal to make clear to the defendant in court that there are questions about statute of limitations that he would need to waive. Defendant agrees to waive his rights. They move to sentencing, the prosecutor asks for 24 months, the World moves on.

Everyone wins, even though the defendant goes to prison for a while. He's got 20% of the likely maximum penalty on an even money shot, which any gambler will tell you is superb "value".

The prosecutor has lost out in terms of seeing time served, but has got a conviction and saved the taxpayer many, many dollars.

The defendant didn't lose their rights. They looked at a 50/50 shot and decided they'd prefer 2 years guaranteed and get on with their life rather than take a 50% chance of 10 years.

[thrashh]

In this case, it’s not 50/50.

It’s 83/17 where 83% is the “feds win.”

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/11/only-2-of-f...

[mbreese]

As an unaffiliated third party, it’s actually quite the example of game theory in action. Everyone has something to risk and trying to figure out the dance of who gives up what is really interesting.

Until you realize these are peoples actual lives… then it’s also sad.

[Cthulhu_]

I think the defense leaned on the part where the owner of the service basically allowed him to keep it, plus cooperation; if the judge rules him innocent (e.g. while he exploited a bug, the then-owner did not press charges and rewarded him), he might get the BTC back, but this time cleared of any crimes. Meaning he can cash in and walk free.

Well, relatively free, his face and name are known and if he is exonerated, everyone will know he's a multi-billionaire and the life of himself and others are in danger.

[paulpauper]

He gave up the coins because his lawyer probably advised him the statute of limitations would not apply here or hold up. If it did apply there would be no case at all, full stop. So a plea is better than facing up to 20 years.