Manhattan Attorney Announces Arrest Of United States Citizen, Who Works For Ethereum, For Assisting North Korea In Evading Sanctions (justice.gov) 102
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, John C. Demers, the Assistant Attorney General for National Security, John Brown, Assistant Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Counterintelligence Division, and William F. Sweeney Jr., the Assistant Director-in-Charge of the New York Field Office of the FBI, announced today the unsealing of a criminal complaint charging VIRGIL GRIFFITH, a United States citizen who works for Ethereum, with violating the International Emergency Economic Powers Act by traveling to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK or North Korea) in order deliver a presentation and technical advice on using cryptocurrency and blockchain technology to evade sanctions. From a press release: GRIFFITH was arrested at Los Angeles International Airport yesterday and will be presented in federal court in Los Angeles later today. U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman stated: "As alleged, Virgil Griffith provided highly technical information to North Korea, knowing that this information could be used to help North Korea launder money and evade sanctions. In allegedly doing so, Griffith jeopardized the sanctions that both Congress and the president have enacted to place maximum pressure on North Korea's dangerous regime." Assistant Attorney General John Demers said: "Despite receiving warnings not to go, Griffith allegedly traveled to one of the United States' foremost adversaries, North Korea, where he taught his audience how to use blockchain technology to evade sanctions. By this complaint, we begin the process of seeking justice for such conduct."
Re: (Score:3)
I'm curious about this too... a US citizen is being arrested for simply teaching somebody in NK about crypto currency? Is the nationality of the teacher relevant? If I did this (UK citizen), would I be in breech of US law and potentially get Assagne'd? Does the travel to NK have relevance? If the teaching was done on-line rather than in person, would that also be an offense?
Re: (Score:1)
Agreed. I mean look how well the war on piracy went. So much easier to defeat cryptocurrency because people aren't interested in money or anonymity so won't be that motivated.
Re: (Score:2)
"Namoto Satoshi," whoever he/she/it is/was very smart to stay anonymous.
who is John Galt ... ;~)
Re:Team New York World Police (Score:5, Informative)
> US citizen is being arrested for simply teaching somebody in NK about crypto currency?
Basically, it's illegal to sell anything to North Korea, without a special permit or under an established exception.
They have been arrested for "selling the technology" to North Korea while explicitly telling North Korea "here is how you can sneak past international sanctions", yes. After being warned that this is unlawful.
> Is the nationality of the teacher relevant?
Yes, the US has jurisdiction over US persons.
> If I did this (UK citizen), would I be in breech of US law and potentially get Assagne'd?
The UK and European Union have sanctions making it illegal to sell things to North Korea. If you, a UK citizen, did it, you would be arrested and tried in the UK.
Suppose a UK citizen travelled to the US and sold things to North Korean agents in the US, then flew home. That would allow for US jurisdiction (because thw crime eaa committed in the US). Because it is a crime in BOTH countries, extradition would be possible. (Extradition requires that the activity be a crime in both countries).
> Does the travel to NK have relevance? If the teaching was done on-line rather than in person, would that also be an offense?
It would still be an offense. Traveling to NK at the invitation of NK officials makes it very difficult to claim he didn't know know that the buyers were NK.
Ps only one crime is defined in Constitution (Score:5, Insightful)
Btw, the defendant might be lucky to get only the charge they did. There is only one crime defined in the Constitution:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in ... or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort"
The defendant gave aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States. 18 U.S. Code Sâ2381 sets the punishment:
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them *OR* adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(Emphasis added on the word OR).
Fortunately, nobody has been convicted of treason since 1953, but this isn't a misdemeanor or something to take lightly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
With elections around the corner, I don't think Trump wants to rock the boat with something so controversial as the death penalty against a US citizen. Perhaps after the election should he remain in office will the hammer come down.
That is adorable. Trump will use it to his advantage to show that he is a strong leader making American great again.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see the logic of that point.
it's a win for his behavior of being tough on lawbreakers
and it's a win because he will forgive american soldiers
but not the treasonous civilians
where is the negative: I can spin whatever negative you come up with to a positive. I might not like to do that but I think just about all of /. can.
Certainly not. Their lawyer better tell them (Score:2)
As I mentioned, there hasn't been a treason conviction since 1953 to the best of my knowledge. I wouldn't expect a treason charge in this case. I'm just saying it's not something to mess around with, because the crime does arguably fit the definition. Congress declared North Korea "the enemy" with thr 1950 Trading With the Enemy Act.
What I would expect I that, as in most cases, the prosecutor will offer to eliminate the uncertainty of a trial by offering a plea bargain. The defendant's lawyer will advise
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Congress declared them enemies in 1950 (Score:4, Informative)
Congress Where do you see "declare war" in Article III?
Congress declared DPRK the enemy with the Trading with the Enemy Act in December 1950. So there's your "enemies in legal terms".
The Korean War never officially ended. NK declared (Score:2)
You're right that the United States has very few official enemies.
SCOTUS hasn't ruled on the "enemies" term that I know, but:
The Korean War hasn't officially ended
Congress has declared DPRK "the enemy"
North Korea recently said they are at war with the United States
NK still holds a US government ship which they attacked and took
When and if NK returns the Pueblo and the Korean War officially ends, perhaps they won't be enemies. As of now, if the US has any enemy I legal terms, it's North Korea.
Re: (Score:2)
The Korean War hasn't officially ended
The Korean Police Action is in an extended ceasefire after the armistice of 1953-1954. The US-Korean war hasn't officially ended because it never started, because war (as opposed to other "authorizations of the use of military force") was never declared. The last declarations of war by the US were passed on June 5, 1942, the last three (Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania) of the six declarations of WW II.
As I understand it, the courts have never ruled (or perhaps have nev
Burr tired for treason without "war" (Score:2)
The Korean Police Action is in an extended ceasefire after the armistice of 1953-1954.
In other words the hostilities have not legally ceased. Hence North Korea may very well legally be an enemy despite no current state of war. A state of hostility may be sufficient for status as an enemy. Also the US suffered military casualties in 1976, the South Koreans military and civilian in 1996, from North Korean military forces in the DMZ and in South Korea.
Aaron Burr was tried for treason and acquitted by the Supreme Court Chief Justice. Not due to a lack of "war" but a lack of action regarding B
Re: (Score:2)
Even back then, the Supreme Court's justices would duck ruling on the big issue if all the ducks weren't aligned on all the rest of the case. (There's a legal principle that demands that, though I don't recall the lattin-ism for it.)
Though J
Stare decisis by ratio decidendi, not obiter dictu (Score:2)
> (There's a legal principle that demands that, though I don't recall the lattin-ism for it.)
The most basic reason is that courts decide individual CASES. Legislatures make general laws. If a case decided by jurisdiction, the court has no business talking about undecided issues of policy.
I can think of three legal principles wity Latin terms that apply.
Stare decisis (it has been decided) requires looking at the factors that actually decided the case (ratio decidendi) rather than anything else mentioned
NK killed US soldiers in 1976, S. Korean in 1996 (Score:2)
Congress Where do you see "declare war" in Article III?
Congress declared DPRK the enemy with the Trading with the Enemy Act in December 1950. So there's your "enemies in legal terms".
The word “declare” isn’t there, but the word “war” sure is, and we’re not at WAR with them, unless you think being at war refers to staring icily at someone for a half a dozen decades without either side actually firing a shot, in an action in which our government never actually declared war in the first place.
You might want to educate yourself a bit better regarding US and South Korean casualties (military and civilian) since the armistice. Here's some high lights.
They didn't fire a shot but North Korean soldiers killed two US soldiers in 1976 with axes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Eight South Korean soldiers were killed by North Korean soldiers in 1996 when a North Korean infiltration mission failed and the North Koreans attempted to fight their way north to the border. Four civilians were killed.
h [wikipedia.org]
Right next to the word OR (Score:2)
> The word âoedeclareâ isnâ(TM)t there, but the word âoewarâ sure is
I highlighted the word "or" for you, and called out that I highlighted it. Did you still not see it?
The standard is EITHER making war against the US *OR* aiding an enemy. Which requires that there can be aiding enemies where there is no war. Otherwise the second clause would be meaningless.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When did the congress of the United States declare war on North Korea, Ray?
December of 1950 (Score:4, Insightful)
Where do you see "declare war" in Article III?
The term is "enemies". Congress declared DPRK the enemy with the Trading with the Enemy Act in December 1950.
Re: Ps only one crime is defined in Constitution (Score:2)
Can he be shot on the White House lawn. Well, there wasa time when it was a thing, if he were found guilty, that is
Re:Team New York World Police (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the thing: right, wrong, and fair don't carry the water in real life.
As a US citizen (and resident of Singapore), Virgil Griffith has many rights to freedom of expression... but not blanket immunity from the consequences his decisions. Despite being warned, he violated an International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”) sanction by traveling to N. Korea to teach N. Koreans how to evade sanctions using cryptocurrency and blockchain terchnology.
There was a reasonable expectation of negative repercussions from his activities. As a US citizen, he will get his day in court, and probably even bail to stay free until that day... plausiby much better treatment than if he'd run afoul of DPRK laws.
Re: (Score:2)
You misspelled 'definitely'.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that's how it works in real life.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious about this too... a US citizen is being arrested for simply teaching somebody in NK about crypto currency?
The teaching is not the problem, the crypto currency is the problem. Most crypto algorithm are under export control. You probably can't bring your cell phone to North Korea without an export licence.
For instance, dual authentication technology is under export control. You are supposed to get a export licence if you bring a machine with Duo installed on it across the border.
Whether you think it is crazy or not is a different question (I think it is), but the charge seems in line with current US law.
Re: Team New York World Police (Score:1)
Re:Team New York World Police (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Funny that you'd support the US Gov't, a group of people known to aid and abet the enemies of the USA every single day.
You are the traitor here. Nobody else. Freedom of expression is freedom of expression and if you want to punish someone for that, you can go fuck yourself, you traitor to human rights.
You can take your mentality straight the fuck back to Russia, you goddamned traitorous fuck.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny that you'd support the US Gov't, a group of people known to aid and abet the enemies of the USA every single day.
You are the traitor here. Nobody else. Freedom of expression is freedom of expression and if you want to punish someone for that, you can go fuck yourself, you traitor to human rights.
You can take your mentality straight the fuck back to Russia, you goddamned traitorous fuck.
Oh, look, we got ourselves a full blown anarchist here Khyber, the shining beacon of freedom.
Go to North Korea and tell Dear leader those thoughts. He'll embrace you.
Re: (Score:1)
I've told "Dear leader" plenty of that. Guess what? He died before he could do shit.
Oh, did you mean "Little Leader" whom we have in power now? Already had plenty of fun with him, too. Feds aren't happy with me but hey, fucks given = zero.
Keep talking, traitorous scumbag.
Re: (Score:2)
I've told "Dear leader" plenty of that. Guess what? He died before he could do shit.
Oh, did you mean "Little Leader" whom we have in power now? Already had plenty of fun with him, too. Feds aren't happy with me but hey, fucks given = zero.
Keep talking, traitorous scumbag.
Please elaborate.
Re: (Score:2)
and Phil Zimmerman should have lost his PGP encryption case too!
Best non sequitur all week
Re:Team New York World Police (Score:5, Informative)
NY office specializes in financial crimes (Score:2)
This is a federal action, by a US Attorney. His district happens to be in New York.
It doesn't just "happen" to be in NY. I think that's that office that specializes in financial crimes.
Re:Team New York World Police (Score:4, Informative)
It was an U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, not the State of New York.
Re:Team New York World Police (Score:5, Interesting)
What is this with facts. Facts get in a way of our partisan rambling.
The news cycle works like this.
Jump first to report something happened. Don't bother with the details, if people are interested we will add these later.
If people are not interested create some editorial to make them interested.
People get interested, and start going on their own rants on it. Bringing up the facts is now too little and too late, the story has taken a form of its own.
You know that dystopian future people use to write about it... Well we are living in it now.
Re: (Score:2)
No, we are not. That's hyperbole. The news industry's mental troubles don't define US society as a whole.
Re: (Score:2)
I've read a lot of dystopian books and seen a lot of dystopian flicks. No, we are not. That's hyperbole. The news industry's mental troubles don't define US society as a whole.
You're quite right.
Whatt's pathetic and depressing, is that the news industry's mental troubles define even a part of us.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think so. For the people living in these dystopian futures, they are mostly unaware of how bad things are. We are not talking about the Hero Characters but the everyday person, living their life.
Re: (Score:2)
What is this with facts ...
Facts in the first 7 words of the summary :-)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe try reading the gods damn article? Hell, click the link provided and you are taken to the FEDERAL US Justice Department website. This isn't a state arresting someone in another state.
Re: Team New York World Police (Score:1)
Hoo boy (Score:2, Insightful)
Going to be awesome watching people who are now going to befriend and pledge allegiance to North Korea over the USA. Let's crowdfund so they can buy one way tickets to their new country, and not have to live under the tyranny of the USA, and enjoy the myriad and total freedom that Dear leader will grant them.
I suspect this was just money laundering (Score:2)
One of the side effects to come out of the crypto currency bubble is that there's a lot of folks who aren't all there in the head that made a lot of money quick. Like anyone that wins a lottery they can have a tough time not letting it go to their heads. Mix in some actual math smarts and you've
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Which is why I have to vote democrat in the next election. The Trump Administration is trying to create a Communist state, were we are suppose to praise the "Dear Leader".
Don't go on the Democrats are pushing big government BS. Because the GOP are pushing bug government, only instead trying to help the populous, they are finding ways to lock up non-GOP voters.
Re: (Score:1)
Which is why I have to vote democrat in the next election.
Really, lets ignore the democrats actively silencing people and preventing other from attending public functions with speakers' who message they don't like, lets forget the previous *democratic* administration that spied on journalists, prosecuted whistleblowers, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Cryptocurrency a tool of the powers that be ... (Score:2)
If you value military dominance, wars for oil, economic hitman jobs, etc. etc.. Then you have no interest in cryptocurrency.
On the contrary, cryptocurrency is just a tool. Equally applicably to the powers that be and the revolutionary. You confuse the mythology of crypto, the PR/marketing, with the reality. Its just a modern form of bartering, nothing more, taxed and regulated like any other barter transaction, any other exchange of assets.
Re: (Score:1)
Welcome to the waking world citizen!
Hypocrisy at it's finest (Score:1)
"Griffith jeopardized the sanctions that both Congress and the president have enacted to place maximum pressure on North Korea's dangerous regime."
If they're so dangerous why did the President make a trailer implying they weren't?
Let's also make this clear...If a U.S. citizen supposedly does something in another country which undermined sanctions put in place by Congress they can be immediately arrested upon their return.
Unless they work for the White House, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you, Herr Starr.
https://i0.wp.com/www.foxforce... [wp.com]
Literacy ..m now downvoted and hated in Murica! (Score:2)
And you guys wonder why the country is going to the shitters ...
But ... lol ... keep going. We'll reclaim the land after you're "done".
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Yeah, but the Whiner in Chief gets those beautiful letters from the little sawed off runt running N. Korea.
Re: (Score:1)
Lucky we can check if this is all morally justified by a simple comparison of destructive capacity. Woohoo!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Bear in mind that Big Chief Barack O'Muslim also evaded sanctions when he sent a plane filled with pallets of cash to the world's #1 terror sponsor, in the middle of the night, on an unmarked plane, without telling anybody that he did it. He should of course be hanged for this. Fortunately Democrats consider the law optional for them: Illegals and Democrats don't have to obey it, but Trump must be destroyed since he doesn't have a (D) next to his name.
It had to happen (Score:2)
He literally kept proof of crimes on his phone (Score:5, Interesting)
Check out Item (b) in "Griffith's Electronic Communications" from the indictment:
"I need to send 1 [unit of Cryptocurrency-1] between North and South Korea." In response, Individual-2 asked, in sum and substance, "Isn't that violating sanctions?" GRIFFITH replied, "it is."
It's not just about giving a speech, it's about violation of sanctions by a U.S. citizen who, after he realized how much trouble he might be in, casually asked the investigator how he would go about switching his citizenship!
Re: (Score:2)
As I responded to another, this is not that. You've conveniently ignored that he was warned and he *knew* and admitted in an e-mail he was violating US sanctions.
Wikipedia and github are not, making the rest of your post a non-sequitur.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
That's the way they roll. Everything should be illegal to give maximum flexibility on achieving their aims.
Crypto = Criminal (Score:1)
Ethereum is not censorship resistant (Score:2)
https://twitter.com/TuurDemees... [twitter.com]
https://twitter.com/TuurDemees... [twitter.com]
https://medium.com/@jimmysong/... [medium.com]
announced today (Score:2)
... the unsealing of a criminal
Did they take away his Trident pin?
First amendment? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought free speech was protected in the US by the first amendment. How can that case fly?
Not ALL speech is protected by the first amendment in the US. Some cases:
-lying under oath is not protected,
-lying to investigators can constitute obstruction of justice,
-speech designed to cause injury is not protected either (that's why shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is typically seen as illegal)
-there are also libel laws that preventing saying known falsehood that cause harm to their reputation (Saying "I think this guy is a moron" is fine, but saying "This guy is a serial rapist" when you don't kn
Re: (Score:3)
Re: First amendment? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Got it! Thanks!
Because... (Score:1)
... It's beyond North Korea's capabilities to understand this stuff without the help of a USAnian. Hey, they couldn't you know, buy or otherwise obtain a book on secret-topic-du-jour.
Re: Because... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm sure that's something torrents.blah factor into their deliberations.
Re: (Score:1)
The real concern to me is the apparent ability of individuals to control the fate of a nation of individuals. But hey, noone mention the elephant in the room, let's focus on a guy sharing information which could be obtained on twenty minutes on the intarwebs - so much easier to address.
Greed prevails over common sense (Score:2)
We need something akin to the Darwin Award for this situation; when somebody pursues greed to this extent that it overwhelms any capacity for them to pursue that greed.
Suggestions for its name?