51% of Wikipedians can believe whatever they'd like to, but the primary source documents are right there for you to read. Nobody was actually murdered because the murder-for-hire scheme was an FBI sting.
The second bit, about nobody needing to be dead for him to be charged, we agree on.
One reason I think people are confused about this is that there was a second prosecution, by a different team of prosecutors in a different case (out of Baltimore?) that charged the murder-for-hire scheme more directly. That may be, but he was still charged for it in the SDNY case, which earned him a life sentence.
SDNY was not evasive about this! They not only indicted for the murder-for-hire scheme, won a conviction on it, and had him sentenced based in large part on it, but also crowed about it in their press release. I'm sort of baffled by the extremely common belief that the DOJ "dropped the charges" about the murder-for-hire scheme. They did more or less the opposite thing.
https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/ross-ulbricht-aka-dread-pi...
Noticeably not on that list is anything related to murder, attempted murder, solicitation of murder, or murder-for-hire.
If I understand you correctly you are saying that the attempted murder is an element of his continuing criminal enterprise - or something like that. I don't believe this though and I haven't seen any evidence of this from you. Googling for people who are convicted for hiring fake hitmen I see that they are charged with things like "Solicitation of murder" and not "Continuing criminal enterprise."
Ulbricht was not charged with murder for hire in New York and he wasn't convicted of it ever. Ulbricht was charged with murder for hire in Maryland and those charges were dropped.
"ULBRICHT, 30, of San Francisco, California, was found guilty of: one count of distributing narcotics, one count of distributing narcotics by means of the Internet, and one count of conspiring to distribute narcotics, each of which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison and a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years; one count of engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison and a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years in prison; one of count of conspiring to commit computer hacking, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison; one count of conspiring to traffic in false identity documents, which carries a maximum sentence of 15 years; and one count of conspiring to commit money laundering, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. The maximum sentences are prescribed by Congress and are provided for informational purposes only, as the sentence will be determined by the judge. ULBRICHT is scheduled to be sentenced on May 15, 2015."
1. distributing narcotics
2. distributing narcotics via the internet
3. count of conspiring to distribute narcotics
4. engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise
5. conspiring to commit computer hacking
6. conspiring to traffic in false identity documents
7. conspiring to traffic in false identity documents
In the released indictment [2] (Apparently there seems to be a superseding indictment), DPR was charged on four counts. Count one is "Narcotics Trafficking Conspiracy", none of the counts are "Murder-For-Hire". But, there are three overt (motivating) acts for the "Narcotics Trafficking Conspiracy": a) Provide a platform for selling drugs b) Solicit a murder-for-hire c) Logging in as admin on Silk Road
So, while the charge "Murder-For-Hire" probably seems hard to prove (as stated above), using the intent of it to justify the count "Narcotics Trafficking Conspiracy" worked here. In a sense, I believe, DPR can not be labeled officially with "murder-for-hire", but in order to protect his "Continuing Criminal Enterprise" and as such commit "Narcotics Trafficking Conspiracy" it appears that he would have committed a "murder-for-hire" crime.
Sources:
[1] https://www.springsteadbartish.com/federal-criminal-defense-...
[2] https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-sdny/legacy...
What seems more likely is that the murder-for-hire thing is messier than the broader, abstract things he was charged with, and they had him dead to rights on that stuff anyways. Without meaningfully contesting and refuting the murder-for-hire stuff, it's relevant conduct for the sentencing; it did the work the DOJ needed it to do.
The big issue in these discussions is the idea that the murder-for-hire stuff was prejudicial --- that it wasn't a part of the case, but was allowed to hang over the case to taint the jury. But that's clearly not true; he was indicted for it, twice, in the SDNY case.
Certainly. And no wonder that the other charges from the Maryland District were dismissed.
> he was indicted for it, twice, in the SDNY case.
You mean, he was charged and found guilty of "Murder-For-Hire"? This I don't follow. I thought overt acts serve the purpose of evidence for the charges/counts rather than being charges itself.
In any case, DPR clearly concluded, that paying someone to kill someone else in order to preserve his anonymity/enterprise was OK. He even committed it.