Jury Wastes No Time In Finding Ross Ulbricht Guilty On All Counts

from the going-away-for-a-long-time dept

Wed, Feb 4th 2015 3:46pm — Mike Masnick

If you've been following the Ross Ulbricht trial, this won't come as much of a surprise, but Ulbricht has been found guilty of all the charges related to creating, running and using the Silk Road dark marketplace:

Distribution/Aiding and Abetting the Distribution of Narcotics

Distribution/Aiding and Abetting the Distribution of Narcotics by Means of the Internet

Conspiracy to Distribute Narcotics

Continuing Criminal Enterprise

Conspiracy to Commit or Aid and Abet Computer Hacking

Conspiracy to Traffic in Fraudulent Identity Documents

Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering

Sentencing will be May 15th, but it seems likely that he'll be locked up for a fairly long time. There is likely to be some sort of appeal, and some have made a valid argument that the court very much limited Ulbricht's possible defenses. Also, as with the Kevin Bollaert revenge porn conviction earlier this week, there are concerns to be raised about how this kind of ruling could be used to pin liability on other websites for activities done by users of those websites. It seems likely that some of Ulbricht's direct activities violated the law, but it still appears that some of the charges conflate his own actions with users of his site -- and so it's a concern about what kind of precedent that sets for other cases involving less controversial websites and services.

Either way, this kind of result was almost a foregone conclusion. In a criminal case, the defense almost always wins if it gets to trial. Also, even for the more nuanced legal arguments -- or Ulbricht's attorney's chosen path of trying to toss out a bunch of alternate scenarios to sow "reasonable doubt" in the jury -- the simple nature of the fact that many people used Silk Road to buy and sell illegal drugs was always going to cloud the overall case against Ulbricht.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: dark market, guilty, ross ulbricht, silk road
Companies: silk road

37 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Sean Gleeson, 4 Feb 2015 @ 3:55pm

"In a criminal case, the defense almost always wins if it gets to trial." Really?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2015 @ 3:58pm

I like how distributing narcotics "by means of the internet" carries it's own separate charges. I also see the prosecution wasn't able to nail Mr. Ulbricht with murder-for-hire charges... "by means of the internet" of course.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2015 @ 4:03pm

Re:
Pretty sure that's a typo, and he meant the prosecution.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2015 @ 4:17pm

Re:
Didn't you know the Internet is lethal? Y'all should stop using it.

Oh, me too. :-)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2015 @ 4:50pm

Re:
Yeah, it was the prosecution who won this one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2015 @ 4:59pm

He wasn't up on murder for hire charges, so there was no point in nailing him on that.

The article here says there is some sort of valid complaint about how the court limited his defenses, but fails to mention that the court repeatedly asked for them to make the arguments. It was the defense attorneys who failed to do so. They failed to file the proper notice, failed to do so in a timely manner, they didn't make an ownership claim to the server in Iceland and so had no standing for a request to have that evidence tossed out (and the judge repeatedly asked for that because it seemed to be an obvious move for the defense).

She points out repeatedly how and why she needs certain information, and that tossing it into the ring on the last day of the trial is simply not permitted.

Her ruling in just one part is here:
http://ia600603.us.archive.org/21/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.422824/gov.uscourts.nysd.422824.173.0 .pdf

The defense made various tactical decisions which backfired on them later on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2015 @ 6:05pm

Pretty despicable jurors that can convict anyone of "conspiracy".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2015 @ 6:07pm

"there are concerns to be raised about how this kind of ruling could be used to pin liability on other websites for activities done by users of those websites."

Yes, god forbid someone that runs a website be held accountable for aiding and abetting illegal acts. Why, that would just be crazy!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
streetlight (profile), 4 Feb 2015 @ 6:27pm

Re: Conspiracy in the USA
I read an article in the Atlantic many years ago about the legality of conspiracy charges in the USA. It turns out, IIRC, that almost anyone can be convicted of conspiracy - kind of a last resort of prosecutors when they can't find evidence that someone was actually involved in a crime. It turns out that the co-conspirators don't even have to know each other or ever met.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2015 @ 6:33pm

Re:
Yes, god forbid someone that runs a website be held accountable for aiding and abetting illegal acts. Why, that would just be crazy!
Craigslist (prostitution; fencing), EBay (fencing), AirBnB (violating crazy hotel regulations), ...

Running a website that happens to let its users commit crimes is very easy if users can post unfiltered content. If the site operators knew, or reasonably should have known, that the users were committing crimes and the site operator reasonably could have prevented those crimes, then on a case-by-case basis, liability could be considered. That second qualifier is critical, because otherwise any site that has more traffic than can be policed by its operators is at-risk of becoming an accomplice if criminals start using it as a message exchange site.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2015 @ 6:51pm

Re: Re:
Yes, it's a good thing those 3 sites have never been held accountable.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/technologylive/post/2010/08/attorneys-general-ta rget-craigslist/1#.VNLYcMbY3UQ

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2009-12-18-coun terfeit_CV_N.htm

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/10/07/airbnb-hit-with-subpoena-from-n-y-attorney-ge neral/

Because websites should be allowed to do whatever they want, right? It's not like the internet is ubiquitous or something, and obliged to follow laws.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
uRspqF7L (profile), 4 Feb 2015 @ 7:03pm

Re:
and so does distribution using the mail, using the telephone system, and many other specific channels of communication. your internet isn't special and hasn't been specially targeted. have a look at the wire fraud convictions and prosecutions--to this day they dwarf internet fraud prosecutions, & nobody claims they are harming communications or "communication freedom." it's actually an effort to make the laws specific tailored to specific actions. how terrible.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TheCarl, 4 Feb 2015 @ 8:32pm

Quite frankly, I think the jury got it right.
As far as I can see, the defence made some huge blunders. If they had managed to have the server, and anything learned from that, declared inadmissible, the case would have collapsed. But they did too little, too late for that.

As to the charges as such, he was guilty on all counts. Safe harbour requires the owners to take appropriate steps if they become aware of illegal activity. Advising your customers in the best ways to conduct illegal activity is the opposite of appropriate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2015 @ 9:27pm

Continuing Criminal Enterprise
#4 is also known as the "drug kingpin" statute, and it has a 20-life range for small kingpins, mandatory life for big kingpins, with the possibility of death for kingpins who murder in the course of business.

No parole allowed, by law. (21 USC 848)

There's a very good chance Ulbricht will be treated as a big kingpin and get life.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 4 Feb 2015 @ 9:36pm

Re:
Tell you what, if you really think it's that easy to know when something being posted is illegal, or potentially illegal, why not create your own company that will handle that for others?

I'm sure many sites would love to be able to offload the task of personally checking thousands of posts, pictures, and hours of video on a daily basis to someone else, safe in the knowledge that if something does slip through, it will be the other guys(your company in this case), who will be on the hook for allowing it to happen.

Or we could just continue to put the liability on the people actually responsible, the one posting the content, and realize that requiring a site or service provider to personally check everything posted on their site/service would be utterly insane, and completely kill off sites that allow user submitted content, which, while great for the parasites that push the older crap, and have to compete with 'amateur' stuff, would be a huge loss for everyone else.

By all means, charge him for running a site pretty much specifically designed to sell illegal drugs, but don't try claim that he should be personally held accountable for what others have done, or that sites should be held accountable for what their users do unless it is proven that they knew that specific illegal actions were occurring, had the power to stop said illegal actions, and chose not to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2015 @ 9:49pm

Re: Re:
It isn't either/or. It was correct to charge him, and it would be correct to charge the users as well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 4 Feb 2015 @ 9:56pm

Re: Re: Re:
Fine, but charge him for what he did, not what others have done. Even if they end up unable to do anything about the users, it would not be fair to up the charges leveled against him as a result.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
andyroo, 4 Feb 2015 @ 10:42pm

Nooooo!!!!
This means that if i create a web chat program and it becomes popular and people use it to arrange the sale or transport of drugs i can be jailed for their crimes. Seriously i understand this guy was a very big target for the gov. but surely only if he was actually caught doing the crime should he be charged with it. And how can he be charged with conspiracy on so many levels, again the DOJ has thrown every accusation at him in the hope that one will stick, this is not an acceptable way to prosecute people and leads to the Jury being in a position where they, i believe, think they have to find the person guilty on some level.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
andyroo, 4 Feb 2015 @ 10:50pm

Re: Re:
I accept that the creator of a small website with maybe a dozen members can be found guilty of a crime if they actively are shown to be promoting people to commit crimes, but even then if they have not committed a crime then they should not be looking at jail time. But when your website has over 100's users it should be up to the police to monitor and find those guilty of a crime.
It is almost like saying that car manufacturers must monitor all their cars and report people for speeding and the police do not have any reason to monitor or charge people for speeding and charge the manufacturer every time someone is found guilty of a crime using their car.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 4 Feb 2015 @ 11:43pm

Re:
Yeah, 'Conspiracy to commit...' charges shouldn't be on the books at all. Either someone committed a crime or they didn't, there should be no grey zone of 'Well they might have planned to commit a crime...', as that's getting into thought-crime territory, where simply discussing something can be a crime.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2015 @ 12:36am

It's interesting that (as is typical in federal prosecutions) most of the charges are "conspiracy" -- which means that no actual criminal act need be committed. Trolling, bullshitting, and fantasy role-playing over the internet is technically conspiracy, the threshhold for the "crime" is that low.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2015 @ 3:50am

Re:
Here's the thing, though; in spite of any concerns I have about the methodology behind the obtaining of evidence, there's little doubt that Ulbricht, at least for some of the time of the Silk Road's existence, was the Dread Pirate Roberts.

His goose was cooked the minute his attorney decided on using the Chewbacca Defense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2015 @ 4:23am

Re:
Yeah, dont let that little thing like inocence get in the way of
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2015 @ 4:27am

Re:
And heres me thinking all that should matter is whether someones guilty or innocent ..........assuming charges are ACTUALLY illegal
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ragnarredbeard, 5 Feb 2015 @ 4:52am

Re:
They didn't get him for murder-for-hire because he wasn't charged with that in this trial.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bamboo Harvester (profile), 5 Feb 2015 @ 5:20am

Conspiracy charges
"Yeah, 'Conspiracy to commit...' charges shouldn't be on the books at all. Either someone committed a crime or they didn't, there should be no grey zone of 'Well they might have planned to commit a crime...', as that's getting into thought-crime territory, where simply discussing something can be a crime."

From a friend of mine, a former criminal defense attorney:

"
1. Conspiracy... "lets go drive out in my car and get some drugs."
2. Solicitation... "Can you get me some drugs?"
3. Facilitation..."Here, I'll help you package those drugs.
4. Accessory... "Here's some money, now go buy some drugs.
5. Obstruction... "Shit, its the cops, I'll go flush these drugs."
"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 5 Feb 2015 @ 7:55am

Re:
I like how distributing narcotics "by means of the internet" carries it's own separate charges.

Also "continuing criminal enterprise". That's somehow separate from each of the individual criminal acts that make up that continuing criminal enterprise.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 5 Feb 2015 @ 7:57am

Re: Re:
And heres me thinking all that should matter is whether someones guilty or innocent .

Juries conclude guilt or innocence based on the cases presented to them, so how well the case is developed and presented obviously matters.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 5 Feb 2015 @ 7:58am

Re: Conspiracy charges
1. Conspiracy... "lets go drive out in my car and get some drugs."

These days it seems like you could get convicted for conspiracy for being in the room while two other people are talking about maybe getting some drugs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 5 Feb 2015 @ 8:23am

Re: Re: Re:
Because websites should be allowed to do whatever they want, right?

No, people should be held accountable for their actions, and only for their actions (not someone else's).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 5 Feb 2015 @ 8:27am

Re: Re:
"it's actually an effort to make the laws specific tailored to specific actions. how terrible."

But it's targeting the wrong actions. If you're breaking the law, that law is broken no matter what communications channel was used. So prosecute for the actual crime, not for using "x" communications channel in the course of committing the crime.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bamboo Harvester (profile), 5 Feb 2015 @ 8:37am

Re: Re:
Here's the thing, though; in spite of any concerns I have about the methodology behind the obtaining of evidence, there's little doubt that Ulbricht, at least for some of the time of the Silk Road's existence, was the Dread Pirate Roberts.

But was he using that nom de guerre *at the time the crimes charged were committed*?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RD, 5 Feb 2015 @ 9:34am

Re: Re: Re:
Ah good. So when your friend borrows your car (or tools, or...) and does something illegal with them without your knowledge, YOU should be hauled off to jail. Glad we have it established that you are OK with paying the price for the crimes of others.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 5 Feb 2015 @ 10:41am

Re: Re:
"And heres me thinking all that should matter is whether someones guilty or innocent"

That is all that should matter, but the question is what process do you use to determine if someone is guilty or innocent? In the US, it's an adversarial process. There are pluses and minuses to this, and one of the minuses is that it means the actual actual outcome of a case is heavily dependent on which side has the better lawyers and which side has the most money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2015 @ 1:57pm

Uh, conspiracy is when you conspire with others to break the law. Silk Road existed to do just that- enable people to break the law. He built it, they used it for the reason he built it in the manner he enabled them to use it.

His actions + their actions = conspiracy.

There is nothing the least bit confusing here. Not even a little bit.

Plus we have the spectacle of an avowed Libertarian who "bravely made it his life's work to take a stand against the government sanctioned violence (or as they like to say 'goobmint' of taxation caught red handed hiring an assassin to kill somehow who pissed him off by attempting to color outside the lines Ulbrict decided were the "just" boundaries for human relations, those boundaries being something like:

illegal drugs to minors-OK !
kiddie porn-OK !
murder for hire-OK !
blackmail-OK !
blackmailing Ulbricht NOT OK !

Just a very typical Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Koch brothers, government hating, commons destroying, amphetamine gulping, coke snorting, whoring, "John Galt super man", principled freedom fighter is you ask me.

Fucking scum. May he rot in jail.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
GEMont (profile), 5 Feb 2015 @ 6:10pm

Re:
Rot in jail - hell mun, with a resume like what you just posted, he'll be heading his own department at the NSA next week. They been looking for a right minded and properly trained man to head up the MAFIA entertainment industry connection and he sounds like he's their man for the job. No legal bullshit gonna get between this guy and getting the job done, that's fer sure.

---
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2015 @ 9:44pm

Re: Re:
Gentlemen, please welcome the Agency's newest acquisition, The Dread DJ Roberts
[ link to this | view in thread ]