Man sentenced to 5 years in prison for giving cryptocurrency lecture

Discussion in 'Law & Justice' started by kazenatsu, Apr 13, 2022.

  1. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,608
    Likes Received:
    11,196
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So it appears simply giving a lecture and giving advice has been made illegal. So much for free speech rights.

    A man was sentenced by a US court to more than 5 years in prison for travelling to North Korea to give a lecture about cryptocurrency.

    By giving this talk, he was accused of "helping North Korea evade sanctions" that had been imposed on North Korea from other countries.

    Virgil Griffith was sentenced to 63 months in prison (5.25 years) and a fine of $100,000.
    He pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to violate international sanctions against North Korea. He had been arrested in November 2019 after giving a talk at a cryptocurrency conference in Pyongyang in April of that year. The crime he was charged with carried a maximum penalty of 20 years.
    At the time he agreed to the plea bargain, he had already spent 10 months in prison and another 14 of months released on bail.

    Former Ethereum Developer Virgil Griffith Sentenced to 5+ Years in Prison for North Korea Trip (coindesk.com)

    Griffith had also been subject to somewhat inhumane conditions while being detained at Brooklyn's Metropolitan Detention Center. This including extended solitary quarantines due to coronavirus outbreaks, no family visits, limited access to blankets and warm clothing, even being forced to use his sink as a toilet. He had been limited to two or less meals a day, usually peanut butter and jelly sandwiches due to prison gangs controlling the running of the kitchen.

    see related thread for more about pre-trial detainment conditions: Arbery defendant describes only being allowed out of jail cell 1 hour a day
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2022
  2. Hey Now

    Hey Now Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2021
    Messages:
    17,074
    Likes Received:
    13,530
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Interesting and he did plead 'guilty' to conspiracy to violating international sanctions.
     
    David Landbrecht and FreshAir like this.
  3. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,608
    Likes Received:
    11,196
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Him pleading "guilty" doesn't really mean anything. Defendants are practically pushed and coerced into pleading guilty all the time.
    If they don't plead guilty, they face the likely possibility of being sentenced to even more prison time.
     
    Jarlaxle likes this.
  4. Hey Now

    Hey Now Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2021
    Messages:
    17,074
    Likes Received:
    13,530
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What it likely means is the prosecution had an airtight case.
     
    David Landbrecht and FreshAir like this.
  5. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,608
    Likes Received:
    11,196
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What does that mean?
    What it does mean is there was a high chance they might have been able to convince a jury to convict him.
    (Some people will even plead guilty when there's only a 40 percent chance a jury would convict them, because they're so worried about a much longer prison sentence. They don't want to take a risk of more prison time)

    You do realize that the issue in this story is not what the evidence is, but rather whether what this man did should constitute a crime.

    That was obvious to you, right? So this talk about "the prosecution had an airtight case" is nonsense.
     
  6. GrayMan

    GrayMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2010
    Messages:
    8,357
    Likes Received:
    3,512
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If he is going to plead guilty instead of fight for his rights, what do you expect? People died so that we can have them. Now people just hand them over.
     
    David Landbrecht likes this.
  7. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,608
    Likes Received:
    11,196
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you are feeling that we should not care about people's rights being violated because they pleaded guilty, then that is illogical.

    There are numerous ways in which the system pushes people into pleading guilty. But that would probably be a topic for another thread discussion.
    This isn't even unusual, it is completely common. There is a reason why 97.8 percent of defendants plead guilty, and it's NOT just because they would have had no chance if it had gone to trial.

    What I've noticed (in these many threads) is that when people read something psychologically uncomfortable, they instinctively try to latch onto any facts that might justify what happened, so it can be seen as not that bad. Try to convince themself that what happened was not wrong, or it is not something for them to worry about.

    You want to imagine that this man finally pleading guilty vindicated the prosecutor and proved them right.

    Remember, he already had to spend 10 months in prison BEFORE he agreed to plead guilty. Then the cost of a lawyer if it had gone to trial probably would have eaten up 2 or 3 years of his income.

    In older times they used to torture accused people to get confessions out of them. These days they just threaten and scare them with the possibility of long periods of prison time to get them to plead guilty.

    This man probably did not even believe that what he was doing was illegal.
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2022
  8. Hey Now

    Hey Now Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2021
    Messages:
    17,074
    Likes Received:
    13,530
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Make sure you share your opine with the judge that accepted the plea and the convict's lawyer along with the wealthy convict. They must be mired in nonsense like the thread bump post above.
     
    FreshAir likes this.
  9. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,175
    Likes Received:
    62,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    no one has the right to violate sanctions
     
    David Landbrecht likes this.
  10. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,608
    Likes Received:
    11,196
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are being completely unfair and illogical if you believe that someone pleading guilty means they deserve it.

    They threaten him with 20 years in prison and then offer him a plea bargain. He has to consider what the chances are that a jury would convict him. Weigh the risks.

    I really do not want to get into issues like this with you in this thread discussion, but it seems apparently I have to with people like you.

    Maybe you would like to clarify what your point was. Is it that you think he is guilty?
    Or is it that you think he has no right to complain because he pled guilty?
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2022
    Jarlaxle likes this.
  11. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,608
    Likes Received:
    11,196
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It depends what exactly those sanctions mean, doesn't it?

    He gave a lecture. That might constitute "advice" or "technology", but no physical goods went to North Korea.

    FreshAir, when you make broad statements like that, it's kind of meaningless, isn't it?
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2022
  12. Hey Now

    Hey Now Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2021
    Messages:
    17,074
    Likes Received:
    13,530
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This entire thread actually does not have a point since your OP is an opine on your biased assumption that the convict, lawyers and the judge are idiots. Last thread bump BTW.
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2022
    FreshAir likes this.
  13. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,608
    Likes Received:
    11,196
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your comment does not make sense and it seems to me you are not thinking.

    It seems you have many naive beliefs about the justice system, that is probably why you seem unable to see that a problem exists here.

    I did not claim that they were idiots.

    What it is is a very questionable interpretation of the law, that seeks to (and successfully did, it appears) make something illegal that is not completely obviously illegal.

    This is not a "mistake" by the prosecutor, it is entirely intentional.

    I suppose the only real question is, do you have any problem with people being sent to prison for giving a public lecture?
    The prosecutor argued that public lecture contained information which helped another country break the law that the US was imposing on them.
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2022
  14. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,608
    Likes Received:
    11,196
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do any of you understand the potential problem and issue here, even if you disagree that it is a problem?

    It's fine if you at least understand what the issue is but disagree with it.

    It's another thing if you are unable to see the issue here or understand what it is.
     
  15. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,175
    Likes Received:
    62,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    after being denied, he went anyway - he pled guilty, so it's over, no trial

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/north-korea-virgil-griffith-cryptocurrency-rcna24169

    "Virgil Griffith, 39, pleaded guilty last year to conspiracy, admitting he presented at a cryptocurrency conference in Pyongyang in 2019 even after the U.S. government denied his request to travel there."

    "A well-known hacker, Griffith also developed “cryptocurrency infrastructure and equipment inside North Korea,” prosecutors wrote in court papers"
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2022
  16. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,608
    Likes Received:
    11,196
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you read other official sources, there is no mention that he himself actually developed infrastructure or equipment in North Korea.

    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."​

    Manhattan U.S. Attorney Announces Arrest Of United States Citizen For Assisting North Korea In Evading Sanctions | USAO-SDNY | Department of Justice

    It seems this is entirely about the lecture he gave.
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2022
  17. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,608
    Likes Received:
    11,196
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What is your point? Why do you feel the fact that there was not a trial is of importance?

    Isn't this still an issue, whether there was a trial or not?

    If you feel that what they did was unfair, the fact that he pled guilty does not make that a moot point. It would still be just as unfair if he did not plead guilty, wouldn't it?
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2022
  18. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,696
    Likes Received:
    21,095
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Our prison/court backlog is often used as an excuse to coerce plea deals. Or so its claimed when it happens to inner city minority gangbangers... apparently its less of a concern when the same tactics are used against others...
     
  19. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,608
    Likes Received:
    11,196
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Some people do not understand why a jury might be likely to convict a defendant of something if that defendant should not be punished for doing that thing.

    It is because a prosecutor can often convince them that what the defendant did was against some law, even though that law does not really specifically say that thing should be illegal.

    Then the prosecutor will try to convince them that the defendant is a bad person, and deserves to be in prison or punished.

    That turns it into "We think this thing should be illegal and punished", rather than because the law specifically and clearly said it was illegal.

    So in the end this is not really based on law but can be based on emotion.

    I know some people may have trouble understanding this, but sometimes individuals deserve to have the right to do something, even if most everyone else doesn't like what that thing is.

    Many of these laws use very vague language. So the issue of what is illegal and what is legal is not black and white, in some cases.
    The prosecutor is trying to convince them that it is illegal, when it is not obviously and clearly so.
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2022
  20. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,175
    Likes Received:
    62,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    read the part you snipped out of my post

     
  21. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,608
    Likes Received:
    11,196
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I suspect that may not be true or may be a misleadingly false mischaracterization. I looked at multiple news sources. None of them give any further detail on that.
    If that issue was important, if that issue was what these charges depended on, you would think they would have given it more weight in their article.
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2022
  22. GrayMan

    GrayMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2010
    Messages:
    8,357
    Likes Received:
    3,512
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He didn't buy anything or sell anything in violation of sanctions. He talked about Cryptocurrency. He absolutely has a right to free speech. If there was an exchange of money, that would be different.
     
  23. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,175
    Likes Received:
    62,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    he was trying to help them avoid the sanctions, he asked the government if it was ok, they said no, he did it anyways

    be like training terrorists with ones speech, and saying it's just speech, no one paid me
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2022
  24. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,608
    Likes Received:
    11,196
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hmm, it seems like you are having difficulty even being able to see the issue here.

    So you believe it is just fine if government punishes people for giving "help", in any way, to another party that the government has put on a prohibited list, even if that "help" just consists of a talk about how to be able to do something.

    What I mean is you believe government totally has the right to do this, yes? That is the issue here.

    You might argue "this situation was bad", but this exact same sort of legal logic and mentality could be applied to a bunch of other situations that are not bad.

    That is an oversimplification. North Korea is not exactly like "terrorists" (even though they are pretty bad). You could easily make the argument that any government fits the definition of "terrorists", if we are using a strict logical meaning. Your statement also sort of insinuates that this advice to terrorists was to directly help them commit their acts of terrorism. What if the advice was more indirect, like how to cook healthy nutritious meals, how to dress for inclement weather? Do you think that a gun instructor, no matter what part of the world he is in, should have to check to see whether the individuals he is teaching are criminals or terrorists?

    It seems like you believe North Korea has no right to be able to try moving their own money around.
    Maybe you don't even believe in the concept of "rights". How about if North Korea starts arresting anyone in the world who helps the United States or trades with the United States?

    Are you able to see the issue at all here? With your type of mentality, where does it end?

    Do you assume he doesn't and shouldn't have the right to help them avoid sanctions? You think it is just fine for government to punish people for giving advice anywhere in the world if that advice helps their enemies? Or maybe you believe the US has the right to impose their law on another country?

    So if the US tells another country they can not trade, and I give that other country some thoughtful advice about how to still be able to trade despite the US trying to stop them, that should be a crime?

    I'm guessing you are the type of person who believes government should have the right to pass any law, so long as it is "good" and for a good purpose?
    And that there is no reason for any of these laws to be limited to being within borders.

    Maybe this is what the issue comes down to.

    Or maybe you believe this is all okay because the US is a "good" country and North Korea is a "bad" country. Is that what it comes down to?

    So you believe government has the right to tell people which other countries they are allowed to go to.

    That is what things were like for people living in the old Soviet Union.
     
  25. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,608
    Likes Received:
    11,196
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This has been a separate issue that has been going on for a while.

    Government has the right to tell people they cannot trade in certain situations. But does government also have the right to tell people they cannot provide information that would help others trade in a way that government has decided to make illegal?

    That seems like government regulating information rather than just physical objects and trade. And that is entering into a very slippery slope.

    And that is one of the tricky difficulties here, because cryptocurrency is composed of just information yet acts as money at the same time.

    Think about it. This man was punished for giving information about how to send information. And one country decided it had the legal jurisdiction to criminalize this even though it was in another country.

    Seems like a worldwide global war on information.
     

Share This Page