It is challenging for law enforcement to track down and trace illicit activities conducted through digital currencies. The process can be very time- and resource-intensive. Further, securing charges and arrests, and subsequent convictions, often requires the strong support of traditional sources of evidence, such as fact witness testimony and electronic communications. Nonetheless, blockchain analytics is a key component of the government’s ability to pursue such cases.
On March 12, a jury in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia found Roman Sterlingov guilty on charges of money laundering conspiracy, so-called “sting” money laundering, operating an unlicensed money transmitting business, and violations of the D.C. Money Transmitters Act. We blogged about the initial criminal complaint issued against Sterlingov here. Sterlingov allegedly laundered $400 million through Bitcoin Fog, a bitcoin mixing service which can be used to obscure the origins of cryptocurrency transactions.
Shortly before the trial and guilty verdicts, the Court issued an order addressing the admissibility of expert testimony related to blockchain analysis software under the factors established by the Supreme Court’s decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to assess the reliability of expert testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. This blog post focuses on that order.
Specifically, the Court addressed proprietary software used by the private digital asset forensic firm Chainalysis, Chainalysis Reactor (“Reactor”), and whether expert testimony by witnesses propounded by the government – Luke Scholl (“Scholl”) from the FBI, and Elizabeth Bisbee (“Bisbee”) from Chainalysis – could rely upon Reactor under Daubert. Reactor is a software used to dissect bitcoin transactions, utilizing techniques like co-spend analysis to connect multiple addresses to a single entity. The defense raised significant concerns about the reliability of Reactor.
The Court found the expert testimony admissible under Daubert. Importantly, the Court also noted that while Reactor was important to the government’s case, it was not the sole basis for the prosecution’s theories. Other evidence, such as materials found in Sterlingov’s possession, online forum posts, IP analyses, and traditional blockchain tracing, also supported the prosecution.
The Court’s decision has potentially significant implications for future cases involving cryptocurrency transactions and digital currency-related crimes. It establishes a precedent regarding the potential admissibility of evidence derived from such software tools and underscores the evolving challenges and complexities of investigating financial crimes in the digital age.
Continue Reading Blockchain Analysis and Related Expert Testimony Admissible In Criminal Trial