- Binding Precedent Works Against Them. The Second Circuit has repeatedly held that novel schemes using new technology can still constitute wire fraud under traditional legal principles. InUnited States v. Agrawal, the court emphasized that “the wire fraud statute is not confined to common-law fraud” and reaches evolving deceptive schemes.
- The “Vulnerable System” Argument is Weak. Comparing this to high-frequency trading or exploiting market inefficiencies misses a crucial distinction: if the evidence shows the brothers gained unauthorized access to private transaction data and manipulated validation protocols, they crossed from permissible market competition into illegal tampering. Courts distinguish between outsmarting competitors using public information versus accessing non-public data through exploitation of system vulnerabilities.
- Money Laundering Evidence Undermines Good Faith. If prosecutors prove the searches about money laundering and crypto lawyers, plus the use of shell companies and foreign exchanges to conceal proceeds, this circumstantial evidence severely undercuts any claim that the brothers believed their conduct was legal. Consciousness of guilt is powerful evidence of criminal intent.
- Jury Perception. The phrase “12-second heist” and evidence of meticulous planning to trap victims may resonate more powerfully with a Manhattan jury than abstract arguments about blockchain governance and decentralized markets. Jurors typically view taking $25 million from others through deception, regardless of the technical method, as fraudulent.
- The Lack of Similar Cases Cuts Both Ways. While the defense argues novelty means no fair warning of criminality, prosecutors will counter that innovation in criminal methods doesn’t immunize conduct. The Second Circuit held inUnited States v. Turley that defendants don’t need prior identical cases to have notice and understand that deceptive schemes are illegal.
The trial will likely turn on whether prosecutors can clearly explain to lay jurors how the alleged manipulation worked and why it constitutes fraud rather than aggressive but legal trading. If the jury understands the brothers as hackers who broke into private data and switched valuable assets for junk, conviction is highly likely. If the technical complexity creates confusion about exactly what happened, the defense has a narrow path to reasonable doubt.
This is the case of United States v. Anton Peraire-Bueno and James Peraire-Bueno, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York.
🛑 It should be noted that the charges in the ndictment are merely allegations and have not been proven in a court of law. The Peraire-Bueno brothers are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
