Jurors in Crypto Bros’ Trial Were So Emotionally Burdened by Deadlock That Half Cried
In May of the previous year, two siblings in their twenties were detained for allegedly engaging in what was described by the Justice Department at the time as an assault on the Ethereum blockchain, resulting in the theft of $25 million. The notion of attacking a blockchain sounds like something out of a science fiction film, yet the brothers insisted that their activities were in line with their aggressive trading approach, not criminal behavior. Their legal battle reached a climax yesterday with a mistrial that appeared to be incredibly taxing for all parties involved.
The crux of the prosecution’s argument against Anton Peraire-Bueno and James Pepaire-Bueno centered around allegations of fraud. Prosecutors claimed that the brothers devised a plan aimed at deceiving crypto trading bots that functioned on behalf of three entities affiliated with real individuals, with only one person, David Yakira, stepping forward as a purported victim. These trading bots specialized in executing “sandwich transactions,” which the siblings targeted and purportedly manipulated to prompt them to malfunction and release valuable tokens in exchange for undesirable ones. To add to these allegations, the brothers were also accused of attempting to launder their illicit earnings.
This intricate and, potentially, illegal exploitation of bots executing sandwich transactions evidently demanded a high level of skill and a keen eye for identifying vulnerabilities in the relatively unregulated environment that is the world of cryptocurrency. The scheme employed could also be interpreted as an effort to cultivate a vigilante-esque persona akin to Robin Hood. Although sandwich transactions are not inherently illegal, they are viewed as parasitic forms of arbitrage or, at the very least, regarded as extremely disruptive. In essence, these transactions involve manipulating unsuspecting individuals’ dealings to manipulate prices and reap quick profits at the expense of those unaware and unable to respond effectively.
The Pepaire-Bueno brothers found themselves in the hot seat at a Manhattan court where the jury, composed of individuals with advanced degrees, was tasked with navigating the fine line between legitimate trading strategies and outright financial misconduct. Despite a three-week trial intended to clarify these murky distinctions, finding a consensus proved to be a daunting challenge, leading to emotionally charged deliberations among the jurors. As the deadlock among the jury members persisted, Judge Jessica Clarke declared a mistrial out of necessity.
Although the mistrial does not absolve the Peraire-Bueno brothers of their alleged crimes, it represents a setback for the prosecution, which will likely seek a retrial to secure a conviction based on the evidence presented. However, the burden of retrying the case after hitting an impasse during the initial trial presents a discouraging prospect for the prosecutors, further compounded by the emotional toll the proceedings took on the jury, as evidenced by the reported instances of jurors experiencing significant distress during deliberations.
