That's the limit of explanation you need in US venue. One big issue here will be demonstrating victims.
Say, have you noticed alleged crime involves selling something on AlphaBay? You think maybe other indictments involving AlphaBay relevant?
-
-
There is a whole set of indictments on AlphaBay sales. With one exception I know of--tied to a clear US victim--the venue tied to sale.
-
So MAYBE a REALLY OBVIOUS way to figure out how they'd do venue for AlphaBay related crime is to look at AlphaBay related prosecutions?
-
That may NOT be the case here--EDWI may be the exception. But barring any contrary evidence the established rule might be MOST OBVIOUS.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Clearly not. Either you're proposing MWT was the proprietor, or unrelated prosecutions under the domain are irrelevant
-
Sorry, can you explain that? I'm suggesting no such thing. I"m suggesting indictment relies on June 2015 sale on AlphaBay. That's news?
-
It's been a solid hour since you queried if 2013 evidence existed, how'd we get to 2015 so quickly?
-
Say! Have you noticed Hutchins wasn't indicted for something he did in 2013? He was indicted for something related to AlphaBay sale in 2015.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.