Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Crime Bitcoin Privacy The Almighty Buck

Maryland Indictment Says Silk Road Founder Tried To Arrange Murder of Employee 294

Posted by timothy
from the dread-pirate-ok-he's-a-dread-pirate dept.
Robotron23 writes "Further charges have been made against Silk Road founder Ross William Ulbricht, aka 'Dread Pirate Roberts'. Yesterday saw the shutdown of Silk Road, a website Ulbricht founded which specialized in the sale of illegal items such as recreational drugs. As well as paying for a hit on a forum member, Ulbricht later requested an undercover agent murder an arrested employee of Silk Road, terming it 'the right move.' Upon receiving staged photos of torture and eventually the corpse, Ulbricht paid in full."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Maryland Indictment Says Silk Road Founder Tried To Arrange Murder of Employee

Comments Filter:
  • by cyberpocalypse (2845685) on Thursday October 03, 2013 @08:55AM (#45023773)
    I can see it now: Defense Lawyer: "My client, who clearly suffers from Aspergers, thought he was playing a game of Skyrim. Bitcoin is not real currency, and he thought the target would respawn in Toronto"
    • by Thanshin (1188877)

      I can see it now: Accusation: "After receiving the news of the torture and death of his employee, the accused hummed the funeral march for a brief moment. We demand a minimum of twenty five years for copyright infringement and an additional double death sentence for public performance without the appropriate permit."

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 03, 2013 @08:58AM (#45023795)

    It sounds like they're ALWAYS undercover agents.

  • by SDF-7 (556604) on Thursday October 03, 2013 @08:58AM (#45023799)

    It is the Dread Pirate Roberts, after all.

    Good night Wesley -- good work, I'll most likely kill you in the morning.

  • by Joining Yet Again (2992179) on Thursday October 03, 2013 @08:59AM (#45023807)

    People who think they've invented a better society are the nastiest sort. The biggest problem is that they're stupid - they create a simplistic, inadequate set of rules to live by. Whether they're underground libertards (as here), staunch conservatives or flag-waving Leninists, they soon find that their utopia isn't quite working out the way they planned.

    And then they start killing people.

    • by Zero__Kelvin (151819) on Thursday October 03, 2013 @09:02AM (#45023837) Homepage

      "People who think they've invented a better society are the nastiest sort. "

      Yes. I hate people who try to create a better society. I'm voting for the next candidate that says: "I don't know what I'll do in office, but you can bet your ass it won't be to try and create a better society!"

      • by Joining Yet Again (2992179) on Thursday October 03, 2013 @09:04AM (#45023849)

        Don't strawman, now. Trying to create a better society is a very different thing from thinking you've invented one.

        • by LoyalOpposition (168041) on Thursday October 03, 2013 @09:22AM (#45024011)

          Trying to create a better society is a very different thing from thinking you've invented one.

          Can you explain how? I mean, it seems to me that they are inextricably linked. Suppose Mr. Legislator wants to try to create a better society. His necessary first step is to hypothesize how to do so. Once he has his hypothesis he has two choices--either evaluate whether the hypothetical society is better than current society or try it. You've forestalled the former, so he has to proceed with the latter. Once it's tried, he must evaluate the results. The possible evaluations are the hypothetical society is worse than ex ante, it's equal, or it's better. You've forestalled the latter. It seems to me that the only way you allow a person to try to create a better society is if he a priori is doomed to failure.

          ~Loyal

          • No. No. You are totally missing the "Joining Yet Again" point! He can theorize that a better society can be created, and he can actually create a better society, but if he then looks at it and thinks he actually created a better society then he is "of the nastiest sort!." ROTFLMAO. The irony is that I didn't point out his blatant flaw because I was trying to be nice and figured I'd inject some humor. The truly sad part of all this? His retort is currently modded +5 Insightful.
            • The real problem with utopia is utopia itself. Your and my idea of utopia will in all probability not match. And, what makes your utopia the "correct" one? People with visions of utopia invariably attempt to force others to accept it. Hence.
              • The other problem with Utopia is that it was never mentioned until you mentioned it. A better society does not equate to a Utopian one.
                • Dude, carefully read my OP and the half dozen eludications that other friendly people here have given - IamTheRealMike's post is particularly informative if you want more specifics. Then go have a beer, light up, browse some porn, or something.

                  Perhaps you're having a bad week, and my sympathies if so, but chill. It's only the Internet.

            • I assume that a reasonable conclusion from a line of reasoning is laughable to you as you as you personally disagree.

          • One he has his hypothesis, he obtains consent from the people. Once he has consent, he tests it.

            He still doesn't think he's invented a better society - yet.

      • by Sarten-X (1102295) on Thursday October 03, 2013 @09:31AM (#45024107) Homepage

        Dude's got my vote.

        Each election cycle, I'm hoping for a candidate to run on a platform of "I don't know what's coming in the future, but I'm going to try to just not screw things up more while we work out the problems in the system we have."

        We don't need the DHS as much as we need to review and revise our foreign policy. We don't need gun control laws as much as we need owner education. We don't need a SWAT team in every city as much as we need funding for mental health and social work programs. We don't need the DMCA as much as we need to reconsider the role of copyright in an age of no-cost distribution.

        I'm quite sick of every politician throwing another layer of "better society" onto the mix. There are too many conflicts already.

      • by mu51c10rd (187182)


        "People who think they've invented a better society are the nastiest sort. "

        Yes. I hate people who try to create a better society. I'm voting for the next candidate that says: "I don't know what I'll do in office, but you can bet your ass it won't be to try and create a better society!"


        At this point...the honesty would be refreshing...

      • It's like the saying "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Yes, I get the point that meaning well =/= doing well, but 1. I don't think you need some stupid saying to communicate that and 2. the road paved with bad intentions doesn't have a better destination.
    • by gox (1595435)

      People who think they've invented a better society are the nastiest sort.

      That's the nastiest sort of generalization.

    • People who think they've invented a better society are the nastiest sort. The biggest problem is that they're stupid - they create a simplistic, inadequate set of rules to live by. Whether they're underground libertards (as here), staunch conservatives or flag-waving Leninists, they soon find that their utopia isn't quite working out the way they planned.

      And then they start killing people.

      Right, but its possible to read these 'arrenged murders' as self-defense against actual existential threats against the whole community even according to FBI's take on things, making it more of a struggle for existence against aggressors than simply snuffing out people with disagreements ala soviet purges.

      • by MarkvW (1037596)

        Self-defense? Killing a state's witness as self-defense?

        That's just crazy talk.

        • Self-defense? Killing a state's witness as self-defense?

          That's just crazy talk.

          If the state in question is displaying the very same symptoms of psychotic behaviour like in the cases of Nazi-Germany and USSR, does it make you crazy if you dont want to end up in special treatment by the secret police?

      • If that's a parody, it's beautiful. But if not...

        making it more of a struggle for existence against aggressors than simply snuffing out people with disagreements ala soviet purges.

        How do you think the soviet purges were justified?

        If your society involves murdering witnesses for declaring what they've witnessed, it isn't better.

    • by dkleinsc (563838) on Thursday October 03, 2013 @09:32AM (#45024111) Homepage

      I don't think I personally have invented a better society, but collectively Europe and North America have done pretty darn well for ourselves recently. Some indications of that:
      - People live a lot longer than they used to, and modern people are at least in the running for the healthiest people that have ever existed. (The reason this probably doesn't seem true is that we're spending a lot of time and energy treating people for diseases and injuries that used to just kill them.)

      - Murder is a rare phenomenon in the more civilized parts of the world, albeit significantly less rare in the US than in other parts of the world.

      - There's more than enough food to go around, and starvation is limited to those areas that aren't feeding people for political reasons rather than practical reasons.

      - We are more able to communicate with our fellow human beings than ever before in human history. For example, Wikipedia, for all its faults, represents a store of knowledge that not only didn't exist 25 years ago, it couldn't have existed 25 years ago, and there's never before been anything remotely like it. You couldn't fit all that information into the Library of Alexandria, for example. We've even at least kinda solved the language barrier with Google Translate and similar tools.

      - We're no longer considering forced labor to be completely acceptable. There's still some of that going on, but it's highly illegal. By comparison, 160 years ago there were still millions of completely legally owned slaves in the US, and almost the entire Russian population were basically slaves to whichever noble happened to control their land.

      - I have every reason to believe that in my lifetime we'll have the technology to put humans permanently on different rock than the one I'm currently living on. That would have been a silly claim 75 years ago.

      • Well, I think you've been overly optimistic with your detail, but I agree with the thrust of your message. None of these things are about one man thinking they've invented a better society, however - they're about lots of people working together to form consensus on gradual improvements to society, then putting that consensus into practice, then evaluating it.

        The main difference between the 20th century and previous centuries is communication. We're educated, dynamic peers. We're not always looking to one m

  • This guy keeps turning out to be worse than we thought the day before.

    It would be nice if the out of control authoritarians would end their insane drug war so that above-board businesses could replace murderous criminals in this thriving economy.
    • by h4rr4r (612664)

      We are on the slow road to that goal. Colorado and Washington have started us down that path. This will be no different than the end of the Volstead Act. Open defiance of the federal law by states is what got that ball rolling as well.

    • by Joce640k (829181)

      This guy keeps turning out to be worse than we thought the day before.

      Bitcoins turn you into a bad person, mmmmmkay?

    • I agree to some extent. But certain substances are so terrible that they need to stay banned - the news about krokodil hitting the US is terrifying because that drug is so horrible. Meth, too, does terrible things to its addicts. Heroin and cocaine kill. On the other hand, milder drugs such as pot and shrooms are relatively harmless and need to be regulated by the FDA or Firearms/Tobacco rather than treated as illegal. I also firmly thing that instead of tossing non-violent addicts in jail, they need t
      • Drugs taken in a controlled manner rarely kill. You list heroin as a killer drug: I can tell you that prior to the 1970s, the drug was prescribed by doctors to addicts in the UK, who lead normal, ordinary lives (and interestingly the number of addicts was less than 1,000 - largely because there was no industry pushing the drug, if you managed to get someone hooked then they could get their supplies for free on the NHS, so why bother?) and rarely died.

        Unregulated drugs creates an environment in which "dru

  • Just running the site he was 'safe', but the old rule applies that if you are doing anything remotely shady you don't stick your nose out there and make a target of yourself .. as they will use it to shut you down.

    Hiring someone for murder, well that qualifies as making yourself a target. Idiot.

    • by gox (1595435)

      He didn't become a target by hiring someone for murder. As far as I can tell, they were already targeting him, caught one of his associates (an admin), blackmailed him pretending to be the admin, and suggested murdering the admin as a seller identity they created, who supposedly knew the admin.

      They were trying to make sure that they would be able to lock him up when they catch him, and he fell for it.

      • He didn't become a target by hiring someone for murder. As far as I can tell, they were already targeting him, caught one of his associates (an admin), blackmailed him pretending to be the admin, and suggested murdering the admin as a seller identity they created, who supposedly knew the admin.

        They were trying to make sure that they would be able to lock him up when they catch him, and he fell for it.

        Wait, the cops told Ulbricht he should have the admin murdered? Attorneys will have a field day with that.

        • by Valdrax (32670)

          Wait, the cops told Ulbricht he should have the admin murdered? Attorneys will have a field day with that.

          Entrapment requires that the police induce a suspect to commit a crime which they would otherwise be unlikely to commit. You have to show that the cop induced the victim to do something he wouldn't normally do himself without the cop's specific involvement. (e.g. If you go to a line up of hookers and just pick the one that happens to be a cop, that's not entrapment.)

          In the Maryland indictment, [archive.org] an uncover cop posed as a supplier and arranged a deal with DPR to move cocaine in bulk since shipments to small

  • Why would a millionaire drug dealer - a type of criminal that is highly unwelcome in the US, continue to reside there?

    • I know, right? All those high taxes punishing innocent job creators - it's a surprise he didn't go to a free country like (/continued on page 94 of "Reason" magazine.)
  • by sjames (1099) on Thursday October 03, 2013 @10:05AM (#45024485) Homepage

    I've heard of all sorts of stings, but it appears that the Feds ACTUALLY sold a kilo of cocaine. As in accepted the cash, and handed over the goods. Not accepted the cash, handed over the goods, then arrested the guy and took the drugs back, actually completed the transaction and left the recipient to sell it on to his customers.

    I have no problem with them busting an attempted murder for hire, but I do have some concerns about law enforcement actually becoming drug dealers.

    • I have no problem with them busting an attempted murder for hire, but I do have some concerns about law enforcement actually becoming drug dealers.

      Oh, come on now, let's not play naive [youtube.com].

  • by GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) <almafuerteNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday October 03, 2013 @10:53AM (#45025085)

    Apparently Ulbritch kept his bitcoins in 8 barrels buried in the desert

1 Dog Pound = 16 oz. of Alpo

Working...