Comment by ALittleLight | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ALittleLight | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

This press release does not claim that Ross Ulbricht was convicted of murder or anything related to it. It says "found guilty yesterday on all seven counts in connection" and, later

    "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."

So, we have...

    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

That's all seven and none of them are murder, conspiracy to commit murder, attempted murder, or solicitation of murder.

I think I can clear it up: The accusation of murder-for-hire would not hold up. The FBI would not be able to prove the required elements for the deed, because in order to prove it, the FBI would need to actually drive or mail something with the intent of murder [1].

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...

Not so much: the distinction you're talking about, of how much the FBI would actually have had to do to charge their sting, is I believe what attempt liability (and, really, inchoate liability in general) is all about (this comes up a lot in child sex stings).

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.

> it did the work the DOJ needed it to do.

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.

You're right: they're explicitly not charges themselves. They're evidence of a broader inchoate crime.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com