In brief
- Brothers Anton and James Peraire-Bueno filed motions Friday to exclude Google search evidence, claiming prosecutors want to use searches for legal terms to prove criminal intent in their alleged 12-second Ethereum blockchain exploit.
- The defense says the searches occurred during attorney consultations after being threatened by “anonymous sandwich attackers” and would force them to waive privilege to explain the context.
- If convicted, the brothers face up to 20 years in prison per count, in what prosecutors call the first criminal case over MEV-boost blockchain exploitation.
Two MIT-educated brothers accused of allegedly stealing $25 million in crypto through a blockchain exploit are fighting to keep their Google search history out of court, saying federal prosecutors want to unfairly use searches for “top crypto lawyers” and “wire fraud statute of limitations” to prove criminal intent.
Anton and James Peraire-Bueno filed the motion in Manhattan federal court on Friday, claiming the searches are “unfairly prejudicial” and occurred during privileged attorney consultations following their alleged April 2023 heist.
U.S. District Judge Jessica G.L. Clarke must now decide whether searches conducted after the alleged crime can demonstrate consciousness of guilt or simply reflect prudent legal consultation during the investigation.
The brothers were arrested in May 2024 on conspiracy, wire fraud, and money laundering charges, with prosecutors calling it a “first-of-its-kind manipulation of the Ethereum blockchain.”
Authorities allege they used their “specialized skills and education” to exploit Ethereum’s MEV-boost system in April 2023, fraudulently intercepting private transactions and diverting $25 million in just 12 seconds.
Court documents reveal they retained counsel immediately after being “threatened by anonymous sandwich attackers” who demanded the return of the allegedly stolen funds.
Defense attorneys provided detailed privilege logs showing Google searches coincided precisely with attorney communications.
A search for “top crypto lawyers” occurred the same day as “communications with potential counsel seeking legal representation,” according to court filings.
“For the government to argue its preferred inference (i.e., consciousness of guilt of the alleged crimes), the government would first need to establish that any given search was connected to this case,” the brothers said in the motion. “But the contents of the searches themselves do not show that.”
The defense claims prosecutors lack witnesses who can provide context for the searches, making any criminal inference “purely speculative.”
“Google search histories can be used as hints, but they’re context-dependent,” Even Alex Chandra, partner at IGNOS Law Alliance, told Decrypt. “The mere fact that someone googled something isn’t automatic proof of intent or guilt.”
“Post-conduct searches are weaker evidence,” he said, compared to searches conducted before alleged crimes, which can show planning or intent.
“It still needs corroborating evidence showing that the searches align with criminal intent,” he added. “Since it would be dangerous if Google searches are determinative alone.”
The brothers also moved to exclude news articles as hearsay with “inflammatory descriptions,” and to block a Twitter screenshot of their alleged “false signature,” saying prosecutors cannot authenticate an image from pseudonymous researcher samczsun’s tweet.
Each brother faces up to 20 years in prison per count if convicted.
Daily Debrief Newsletter
Start every day with the top news stories right now, plus original features, a podcast, videos and more.
