COUNT 1, MONEY LAUNDERING: NOT UNANIMOUS
COUNT 2, 1960: GUILTY
COUNT 3, SANCTIONS EVASION: NOT GUILTY
Login to reply
Replies (17)
What's 1960?
I was just about to ask that too
Same
This is the most retarded charge lol
18 U.S.C. § 1960(b)(1)(C) otherwise involves the transportation or transmission of funds that are known to the defendant to have been derived from a criminal offense or are intended to be used to promote or support unlawful activity
View quoted note →
LII / Legal Information Institute
18 U.S. Code § 1960 - Prohibition of unlicensed money transmitting businesses
crock of shit!
Can this be appealed to a higher court?
thank you to the not brainwashed / braindead jury members who refused to go along with the crowd on count 1
isn't this the exact plea deal of samourai devs?
I believe so.
Highly likely
Will LN Nodes be momey transmitters under this definition?
🚨UPDATE: Jury also not unanimous on count 3, sanctions evasion. Government will decide whether it will retry charges one and three.
🚨UPDATE: Count 3, Sanctions evasion, is also inconclusive. The Government will decide whether it will retry Storm on money laundering and sanctions evasion.
View quoted note →
So entire case retrial. Gov on 1 and 3 and defense apeal on 2
I would think they would **if** you had known your routing was derived from a criminal offense. As a basic node operator you would likely not know this for most routed payments unless you were engaging with a known node that was engaging in poor behavior.
I'm just a dumbass on the internet and not a lawyer. I'm likely wrong. Don't listen to me for any other reason than bullshitting on nostr.