According to Ekeland, the prosecution used tools sold by Chainalysis and consulting help from Excygent in order to trace cryptocurrencies.
Chainalysis, valued at $8.6 billion in a recent investment round and frequently used in high-profile cybercriminal law enforcement investigations, had a conflict of interest due to its dependence on US government contracts and a flow of former government investigators who have gone to work. Ekeland says that this is a story of people profiteering and furthering their careers by throwing people in jail for promoting a junk science tool. Based on the evidence provided in his case, he believes that chainalysis is the Theranos of analysis.
Chainalysis didn't comment about the motions or Ekeland's characterization of its work.
All of his holdings, which were frozen at the time of his arrest, came from his early investment in cryptocurrencies, according to the man. He admits to sending and receiving payments to the service, but says he didn't do anything illegal. He thinks some of his transfers may have been mixed up.
The defense filed two expert declarations with the court, one from a researcher and another from an analyst. The documents are meant to back up the accusations that the prosecution and Chainalysis and Excygent had conflicts of interest in investigating the possible ties to Bitcoins.
When he moved to Sweden with his family at the age of 14, he argued that he should be tried in Sweden instead of the US. He went to flight school to get a commercial pilot's license. His defense argued in Monday's motions that the District of Columbia prosecutors have no right to charge him because he has no connection to the city.
I don't understand how I'm being held. "I've never done business with America." I'm concerned. I have no idea what will happen. I am a long way from my home. Sweden would be able to deal with me if I were a criminal.
The statute of limitations has run out on the charges against him since the alleged conduct at issue occurred in 2011. According to the motion, there are three counts that have a five-year statute of limitations and one count that has a six-year statute.
It is inevitable that their methodology and validity will be questioned due to the fact that they have become central to many cybercriminal investigations in the US and worldwide. The first step in establishing that battleground is taken by the case ofSterlingov.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
