USA v. Ulbricht Transcript, 1/20

562
F1KGULB1
1
Trial
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------x
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
ROSS WILLIAM ULBRICHT,
6
7
14 Cr. 68 (KBF)
Defendant.
------------------------------x
New York, N.Y.

January 20, 2015
11:00 a.m.
9
10
Before:
11
HON. KATHERINE B. FORREST,

12
District Judge
13
14
APPEARANCES
15
16
17
18
19
20
PREET BHARARA,
United States Attorney for the
Southern District of New York
BY: SERRIN A. TURNER
TIMOTHY HOWARD
Assistant United States Attorneys
JOSHUA LEWIS DRATEL
LINDSAY LEWIS
JOSHUA HOROWITZ
Attorneys for Defendant
21
- also present 22
23
24
Special Agent Vincent D'Agostino

Molly Rosen, Government Paralegal
Nicholas Evert, Government Paralegal
Sharon Kim, Government Intern
25
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
563
F1KGULB1
Trial
(Case called; in open court; jury not present)
MR. DRATEL:
THE COURT:
Thank you for your accommodations.

These things happen.
Too bad it happened
to late at night for you, but here we are and it's all set at
this point.
seated, all of you -- of giving me some additional time to go
through some matters.
matter raised by the government in a letter this morning to go
over.
It actually did have the advantage -- please be
I've got one and then possibly a second
The main matter that I wanted to address before we start
10
is the evidentiary issue left over on Thursday, which was the
11
subject of the significant letter submissions that I received
12
on the 19th from both sides.
13
Are there other issues apart from the one raised this
14
morning and the other that was the subject of the significant
15
submissions that you folks want to raise?
16
sense of how many things we need to address before we begin.
I just want to get a
17
MR. TURNER:
There are three others.
18
THE COURT:
Are they short or longer?
19
MR. TURNER:
20
particular.
One of which we'd like to address at side bar.
21
THE COURT:
22
MR. TURNER:
23
THE COURT:
24
25
Two I think are fairly short, two in
Is that the one from your short letter?

There's an additional one.
Then is there any that you can otherwise
raise and we'll knock those off and get them done?
MR. TURNER:
Sure.
One is very short.

(212) 805-0300
We think an
564
F1KGULB1
Trial
instruction should be given to the jury at some point that any
redactions they see in the exhibits should not be taken to mean
anything.
that might appear in the documents.
5
6
THE COURT:
Mr. Dratel, do you have any opposition to
an instruction along those lines?
7
8
They're generally to protect private information
MR. DRATEL:
No, just that it's not relevant.
That's
why it's redacted.
MR. TURNER:
And another issue we wanted to raise is
10
during cross-examination on Thursday, the defense asked Special
11
Agent Der-Yeghiayan about whether there were restrictions about
12
what was sold on the site, that there were no assassinations,
13
there were no credit cards, stolen credit card information.
14
And as your Honor is aware, your Honor ruled originally that
15
the government cannot introduce evidence of uncharged criminal
16
conduct that occurred on the site, and we believe that the
17
defense's question has opened the door to that.
18
guns that were sold on the site.
19
apparel.
20
There were
There was counterfeit
There was stolen -- there's pirated software, etc.

THE COURT:
Let me ask you about that because one of
21
the reasons for the Court's ruling was not only relevancy, but
22
it was also that the basis for getting that information in
23
required, I believe in some instances, getting through the
24
hearsay objection for the photographs of the website which
25
indicated the narcotics, that there's a coconspirator exception

(212) 805-0300
565
F1KGULB1
Trial
which the Court made rulings on.
counterfeit Gucci belt, the question is, if you're going to say
that counterfeit things were, in fact, sold versus there were
advertisements such as X, I think there's a hearsay problem.
If you say there were counterfeit things sold, I think we run
into this problem.
there were advertisements for the following things and leave
that open, that's a different alley.
But for things like
If you're going to say were you aware that
MR. TURNER:
There are a couple of points:
First of
10
all, I think the coconspirator exception would apply to the
11
same extent the coconspirator exception doesn't have to apply
12
to a charged conspiracy, it's just any conspiracy.
13
continue to take the position that these statements are not
14
even offered for the truth.
15
posting pictures of a grocery store with the items on sale and
16
the prices.
17
that there's something being sold there as reflected in the
18
advertisement.
19
truth value.
20
And we
It would be akin to somebody
These are not statements, but they're evidence
They're offers.
THE COURT:
They're not statements with a
That's I think the second avenue that I
21
was opening up.
My suggestion is, if you're going to say these
22
are the things that were advertised, you were asked about
23
certain goods and services that were not being advertised, were
24
you aware of other things that were being advertised other than
25
what we talked about?
Yes, such as these types of

(212) 805-0300
566
F1KGULB1
1
Trial
advertisements.
MR. TURNER:
THE COURT:
MR. TURNER:
Right.
Are you going to go any further than that?
No.
We can stick to advertisements or we
can simply strike the testimony that was already admitted and
we don't have to get into those other goods, but we do think
the defense opened the door to that sort of evidence with that
questioning.
THE COURT:
Mr. Dratel, do you have a response to
10
that, first, whether or not we eliminate it by just striking
11
the information elicited as to what was not sold, just on the
12
basis with sort of a short statement that you heard testimony
13
about what may not have been sold and the only thing that's
14
really relevant here is information relevant to the charges.
15
That would be one way of handling it, and not getting into the
16
opening of the door for the other pieces.
17
MR. DRATEL:
Right.
I think with respect to opening
18
the door, though, it didn't open the door in the sense that
19
saying what is not permitted on the site, which was accurate,
20
does not open the door to what was permitted on the site.
21
in other words, the government -- it's not that the testimony
22
was inaccurate or misleading in anyway because I didn't say
23
that anything that the government wants to put in was not
24
offered on the site, only those specific things that were not
25
allowed on the site.

(212) 805-0300
So
567
F1KGULB1
1
Trial
THE COURT:
I do remember the questioning because I
actually had the same thought about it falling into the opening
of the door for these other pieces.
was that really bad things, other kinds of bad things were not
offered on the site, for instance, things which, to pick up on
a theme I think has been developed, could not harm people; that
as we have seen from the signature line of certain chats, the
drugs don't jump off the table and harm anyone.
implication since those documents are in, the question of
One of the implications
So I think by
10
whether or not guns were being sold, I suppose you could argue
11
that they don't jump off the table and hurt someone either, but
12
it's a little further afield.
13
It's potentially opened.
Why don't you tell me whether or not you'd be willing
14
to strike the line?
15
think very light, which is you may have heard testimony about
16
other goods and services that were or were not sold on the
17
site.
18
jury is the evidence that you have and it's for you to weigh
19
that evidence as to what has been sold on the site.
What's relevant to you, ladies and gentlemen, of the
20
MR. DRATEL:
21
THE COURT:
22
23
24
25
I would do it in a way that is very I
Can I think about that for a little bit.

Yes.
The other issue, was there something
else, Mr. Turner?

MR. TURNER:
There's a third issue we'd like to raise
at side bar.
THE COURT:
Right.
We have two side bar issues.

(212) 805-0300
Then
568
F1KGULB1
Trial
let me deal with the issue which we have all spent I assume a
great deal of time on over the weekend.
with rulings like this, I have read the cases which you folks
have presented me with, for which I thank you, and also did
rather exhaustive research on our own to come up with what is
the right way to analyze this evidentiary issue.
speaking now about the evidentiary issue left over from
Thursday afternoon.
Mark Karpeles issue, but it also can relate to something more
And as is the case
And I'm
I'm going to call it the MK issue for the
10
generically described as an alternative perpetrator issue.
11
I have read the letters submitted by the parties.
12
have read the cases and I also went back and reviewed the
13
transcript of our prior proceedings.
14
that the prior transcript did convince me that there were,
15
having now decided how to analyze this issue properly, there
16
were all kinds of things to which the government probably
17
should have -- undoubtedly should have objected earlier and we
18
would have ripened this issue before it had gotten so far down
19
the road.
20
differentiate between similar types of questions when certain
21
questions weren't objected to and then others were objected to.
22
But let's put that issue of whether there would be a waiver to
23
the side for a moment and let me tell you how I analytically
24
put this issue together.
25
One thing I would note is
Part of the confusion here is trying to
I want to start from the beginning, which I think is

(212) 805-0300
569
F1KGULB1
Trial
important which is asking ourselves as to any evidentiary
ruling what is this case really about.
whether this defendant, Mr. Ross Ulbricht, engaged in the
conduct that is charged in the counts in the indictment.
then we get to what is relevant evidence?
evidence which is probative of a fact in dispute and whether
the defendant is Dread Pirate Roberts or was Dread Pirate
Roberts at certain points in time but not other points in time
is a fact in dispute.
10
This case is about
So
Relevant evidence is
Then we ask what's the relevance more granularly of
11
whether the defendant was Dread Pirate Roberts?
12
because at certain points of time, there are certain pieces of
13
evidence where Dread Pirate Roberts does certain things which
14
the government has presented.
15
moment is Mr. Ulbricht, then that leads to one set of possible
16
inferences; if Dread Pirate Roberts at that point in time is
17
not Mr. Ulbricht, then it leads to another.
18
And that is
If Dread Pirate Roberts at that
Now, a question which is, I think, floating around in
19
here through this is whether or not the fact that there might
20
be - and certainly the defense is arguing - another Dread
21
Pirate Roberts, does that exculpate the defendant?
22
exculpatory, and that it may or may not.
23
the jury ultimately to decide.
24
25
Is it
That will be up to
First, the jury will decide whether they believe in

the defense theory, which it has a right to pursue as to an
(212) 805-0300
570
F1KGULB1
Trial
alternative perpetrator, and the alternative perpetrator, the
defense alleges, is either "the" Dread Pirate Roberts or became
Dread Pirate Roberts and then framed Mr. Ulbricht and turned
over his identity to him at some point in time.
Now, only if the evidence relating to the Dread Pirate
Roberts at a particular point in time where the reasonable
inference can be drawn that it was not the defendant could it
be exculpatory; in other words, you could have the defendant be
Dread Pirate Roberts at one point in time, have somebody else
10
be Dread Pirate Roberts at another point in time and had to go
11
back to the defendant, that's not exculpatory except for the
12
quantum of whatever the proof is in between.
13
For instance, if the quantity of drugs, which could be
14
a very relevant issue, takes hold during the period of time
15
that the defendant was not Dread Pirate Roberts, that's one
16
thing.
17
conspiracy for narcotics distribution at any point in time, a
18
defendant is liable for all of the acts going backwards.
19
a matter of law, we know this from the Gonzalez case, there are
20
oodles of cases from Supreme Court case law that a
21
coconspirator who joins a conspiracy is liable for the acts
22
which occurred prior to that individual joining so long as
23
those acts were reasonably foreseeable to the coconspirator.
24
So whether or not the presence of additional Dread Pirate
25
Roberts helps is a question to be determined first based upon
Of course, if the defendant is shown to join a

(212) 805-0300
So as
571
F1KGULB1
Trial
an analysis as to whether or not there is a second - or even if
Mr. Ulbricht is a first - Dread Pirate Roberts.
Now, since Mr. Ulbricht, his counsel conceded in the
opening that he started Silk Road, the timing is unclear as to
when and whether the defendant allegedly left Silk Road and
whether or not there's a point in time when he becomes Dread
Pirate Roberts before he hands over I think according to the
defense theory the website.
from the government that the defendant was found at the time of
And the evidence appears to be
10
arrest acting as Dread Pirate Roberts at the time of arrest.
11
Whether that was for that one day or whether it had gone back
12
in time and in fact covered the entire time will be for the
13
jury to determine.
14
So that's sort of the relevance.
Now, the Court looks at relevance broadly as the
15
Second Circuit requires under the rules under 104, but the
16
Court also is mindful of balancing Rule 403, which is whether
17
or not things that require trials within trials end up being
18
unduly confusing, misleading to the jury, and so I have that in
19
mind and I've had that in mind as I have proceeded.
20
The evidence of third-party culpability and
21
alternative perpetrator is admissible if there's sufficient
22
evidence tieing a particular person or even if it's an unknown
23
person to the offense.
24
case which you both acknowledged and cited in your papers over
25
the weekend, a 2008 case, but you do need some direct evidence
That's the Wade case, Second Circuit

(212) 805-0300
572
F1KGULB1
Trial
of connection.
clear, because it's very possible to have suspicion as to more
than one person and this apparently happens as you folks know
all the time, whereas the investigation eventually focuses
primarily on one and one is primarily then tried and the other
may never be tried.
That's the other point that the Wade case makes
So the question ultimately boils down to whether this
particular defendant did the particular acts which would relate
to or amount to Counts One through Seven, not whether somebody
10
else also did those acts at the same time, in effect,
11
duplicating those efforts.
12
So one issue is what does the defendant have that Mark
13
Karpeles is, in fact, DPR if there's something that we're
14
leading up to versus just trying to get that information out of
15
the government's witness; in other words, whether or not there
16
is going to be other evidence offered.
17
Mr. Dratel's point that the timing of the turning over of the
18
3500 material makes certain aspects of this more difficult for
19
the defendant because they simply haven't had time to develop
20
all that they would have for Mr. Karpeles, but nevertheless,
21
the defense theory has been known since at some point many
22
months ago.
23
fact of another DPR, whether it be Karpeles or somebody else,
24
is certainly something which I assume the defense has developed
25
to this point and, therefore, there may be lots of things which
I am mindful of
It's been previewed even to the Court.

(212) 805-0300
So the
573
F1KGULB1
Trial
the defendant, if he has them, would be able to present as
direct evidence of that theory.
understand, it's the government's burden to show that the
defendant is or is not culpable of the offenses charged.
question is whether or not the defendant wants to try to rebut
some of that evidence in a particular way, but it's the
government's burden in the initial instance.
8
9
For instance, now, as we all
The
So, the question is whether or not the defendant has

this, for instance, like chats with a third party showing that
10
he's about to turn over the website, soliciting interest in
11
somebody else wanting to take over the website; in fact
12
conveying the private key, something which indicates that there
13
was a moment when it was copied from another computer to a
14
different computer.
15
those of you who are more technically savvy than I am could use
16
to demonstrate that, but it's the direct evidence of another
17
DPR which is competent evidence.
There might be any variety of ways which
18
Now, we used the term competent evidence on Thursday
19
and competent evidence, just to be clear, it needs to both be
20
relevant as a threshold hold matter, which I've already now
21
described, but it also needs to be admissible evidence under
22
the rules and not subject to an exception under the rules.
23
it's direct evidence of somebody taking over the website, it's
24
also circumstantial of someone taking over a website, so
25
circumstantial evidence where various dots can be placed along

(212) 805-0300
So
574
F1KGULB1
Trial
a line and while it's not drawn in between it, a reasonable
juror could draw the inference would be competent
circumstantial evidence.
It's important, and this is where the difficulty comes
in and it's a difficult issue for trial judges everywhere, to
distinguish between what is speculation and what is
circumstantial.
circumstantial evidence and what is purely conjectural or
purely speculation.
There's a difference between what is
There's a lot written by a lot of courts
10
on where an inference becomes conjecture or where an inference
11
is reasonably based on fact.
12
The point is that the logical inference must itself be
13
based on otherwise admissible evidence; otherwise, it does
14
become conjecture.
15
now all had an opportunity to slow down and read, which
16
indicates that a person's subjective beliefs is simply
17
speculation.
18
beliefs may be admissible.
19
is, for instance, in certain instances not going to an ultimate
20
conclusion of a case where an expert witness can offer certain
21
opinions.
22
So there is lots of case law, which we have
There are certain instances where subjective

Those are not pertinent here.
That
Indeed, lay witnesses can also offer certain opinions,
23
but they can't usurp the fact-finding role of the jury.
So
24
let's go back to our umbrella example.
25
witnesses to discuss on the witness stand -- this is now the
It's certainly okay for

(212) 805-0300
575
F1KGULB1
Trial
circumstantial evidence example I raised during the early part
with the jury -- I saw individuals enter the courtroom with
raincoats, I next saw them enter with umbrellas, I saw that
there was water dripping off of the umbrellas.
which the witness is seeing.
raining or I believe it's raining because that is ultimately
for the lawyers to argue from the various facts which are put
in as inferences.
Those are facts
The witness can't say I know it's
So this is where we get to the first part of -- and
10
I'm going to give you folks a list of what's okay and what's
11
not okay, it's not all not okay and it's not all okay -- of
12
Mr. Der-Yeghiayan.
13
it's clear to me, having now reviewed the cases very clearly
14
and analyzed from the beginning what is competent evidence and
15
what is incompetent evidence, that his thoughts and beliefs are
16
irrelevant.
17
What Mr. Der-Yeghiayan thought and believed
I've also gone back through the earlier portion of the
18
transcripts and, in fact, the government stayed away from
19
thoughts and beliefs, but he's been brought into it a lot on
20
cross.
21
instances where he was asked about his thoughts and beliefs,
22
and I think this led to the confusion.
23
The government did not object to numerous, numerous
Let me just give you folks a cite of the Johnson case
24
at 529 F.3d 499 at pin cite 501 and also the Garcia case, and
25
there are a number of others which stand for this proposition.

(212) 805-0300
576
F1KGULB1
Trial
This is an especially important proposition when you're talking
about an investigator or a special agent because the redirect
examination that could lead from this is clearly error and you
can't have one side, one-hand clapping.
The clear error is the following:
If allowed to say I
believed at one point in time that Mark Karpeles was the DPR,
and what did you base it on?
sources of information, the redirect becomes, Did there come a
point in time when you ceased to believe that?
I based it on the following four
Yes.
And who
10
did you become a believer in in terms of their guilt?
11
believed it was Ross Ulbricht.
12
Because of the following 27 pieces of information, which then
13
become essentially a summary statement that the government
14
would normally do during its closing arguments.
15
conclusory summarizing testimony as to drawing inferences for
16
the jury that the jury would be drawing usurps the jury's
17
fact-finding role and is clearly not relevant.
18
Can you tell me now why?
Yes.
That kind of
What is relevant is direct knowledge and responses to
19
that direct knowledge.
For instance, before I go into probable
20
cause, let me say that it's error for the agent to testify
21
about opinions regarding any person's culpability, particularly
22
clear with respect to the defendant, but the same principles
23
apply to third parties.
24
Garcia case I mentioned is a Second Circuit 2005 case, the
25
Grinage case, another Second Circuit case; the Dukagjini case,
And that is true under 701 and the

(212) 805-0300
577
F1KGULB1
Trial
a Second Circuit case.
confronted this question.
which is a Second Circuit case from 2005 where the Court then
talks about the difficulties of opening the door in that kind
of case.
We're not the first court to have

And then also the Carmichael case
Let's talk about probable cause.
In terms of probable
cause, there have been other instances where individuals have
been asked whether or not there was probable cause in their
view, and that has been precluded across the board on the basis
10
that it's a legal conclusion; that the concept of probable
11
cause is a legal concept.
12
crime has been or is about to be committed?
13
answer to that legal conclusion, and so whether it's put into
14
the form of a statement, "I believe that there's probable
15
cause" or in terms of a physical manifestation of that, "I
16
sought a search warrant implicitly because I believed there was
17
probable cause," that is similarly based upon the legal
18
conclusion.
19
Is there probable cause to believe a

So it asks for an
Now, with all of that said, as we all know, there are
20
a series of cases which are quite clear that the defendant is
21
entitled to present a defense theory.
22
theory here that's clear that the defendant is pursuing as to
23
an alternative perpetrator and he is certainly allowed to
24
present competent circumstantial and competent direct evidence
25
supportive of those theories, and I am in no way precluding the
There is a defense

(212) 805-0300
578
F1KGULB1
Trial
defendant from presenting a witness who may be able to suggest
that he or she knew the real Dread Pirate Roberts and it wasn't
the defendant or whatever various ways this could be shown.
And there are certain cases that are inapposite to
this case but that are supportive of it, of that principle.
The Alvarez v. Ercole case, in that case, there was a report of
another suspect.
other suspect was never pursued.
There was an investigation that was doing whatever it was
The issue there was that the lead for the

Here, that's not the issue.
10
doing, and it was remanded on the basis of a habeas petition
11
that they should have allowed it to be inquired into not the
12
truth of whether that other person was guilty or not, but of
13
the adequacy of the investigation.
14
In the U.S. v. White case, which is a 2012 case, in
15
certain instances, that case indicated that the charging
16
decisions could be admissible.
17
occupants of a vehicle who were charged with possessing the
18
very firearm that then the defendant was charged with
19
possessing.
20
talked about, the Wade v. Mantello case is supportive of the
21
Court's view.
22
which is at 450 F.3d 1283 at 1290, and it's an Eleventh Circuit
23
case, 2006.
24
in connection with an investigation being inadmissible hearsay
25
and the statements only allowed -- if they were allowed in, it
It's not apposite.
There, there were other
And then the Wade case we
In terms of the Arbolaez is a case that we found
That's another case talking about probable cause

(212) 805-0300
579
F1KGULB1
1
Trial
would be only for the purpose of showing some amount of truth.
So here are the questions, which, based upon all of
these principles of law, appear to the Court to be clearly off
limits, and then I'm going to give you the ones which I think
are on limits.
Off limits are things such as the following, these
questions or reasonable derivatives of these questions:
you suspect Mark Karpeles?
suspicion.
Did
The word "suspect" is a conjectural
Now, I will say that was asked in spades with no
10
objection by the government earlier on.
11
three times on Friday, but we'll get to what we do in terms of
12
the government's application in its letter to strike, which is
13
somewhat complicated.
14
It was asked two or
But did you suspect Mark Karpeles?
There should be no
15
further questioning into that.
16
was DPR?
17
or not this witness believed -- the dots can be drawn, but the
18
belief he needs to stay away from.
19
Did you believe Mark Karpeles
There should be no further questioning into whether
Do you suspect Ross Ulbricht?
Do you believe Ross
20
Ulbricht was DPR?
Similar, the same witness can't do one, he
21
can't do the other.
Does he suspect that Mark Karpeles
22
operated Silk Road?
Does he suspect?
23
Karpeles did not operate Silk Road?
24
off limits.
25
limits.
Does he suspect Mark

Both of those are equally
Any descriptions of belief that he has are off
However, what's not off limits are things like:

(212) 805-0300
Did
580
F1KGULB1
Trial
you see X?
Did you see X?
Did you do Y?
Did you investigate X?
Yes.
No.
Did you see Y in connection with that work?
Now, the interview, this is now the Forbes interview
we talked about that on Friday, and that is hearsay, and I
don't think there's much of a debate about the content of it
being hearsay.
it sounded like the man on the moon, it doesn't matter, or that
he believed it sounded like Karpeles doesn't matter because
that's his subjective belief.
10
Whether or not this particular witness believed
Now, in terms of the offer, the offer to provide, this
11
is the Karpeles offer, through his lawyer through another AUSA
12
etc. to provide law enforcement with information as to who the
13
real DPR was is also not relevant.
14
the offer.
15
there was no information.
16
provide, based upon the government's proffer, he never provided
17
that information.
18
that comes out.
19
relevant to a disputed issue of fact.
20
issue of fact relevant to this defendant's culpability whether
21
or not an offer was made by somebody else to potentially
22
divulge information.
23
getting out whether or not Karpeles had inside information
24
about Silk Road.
25
question from whether or not Ross Ulbricht can be tied himself
The offer is the fact of
That's the only point of that, because we know that

We know that Karpeles did not
So it's not as if there's some secret name

So the fact of the offer itself is not
It is not a disputed
And it's really a way of, I believe,
If he did, he did, but that's a separate

(212) 805-0300
581
F1KGULB1
Trial
through competent evidence to Silk Road in the manner the
government has been suggesting.
In terms of the 807 and whether or not that gets over
hearsay, first of all, I find that the fact of an offer upon
analysis and taking it apart as to what each segment is for is
irrelevant, but is it probative?
anything else that can be offered?
really inviting the jury to speculate.
that Karpeles was self-interested in making any offer at the
Is it more probative than

The answer is no.
It's
And the other issue is
10
time and, therefore, it's unclear whether he actually had any
11
information.
12
of real and potentially inferentially reliable information and
13
Karpeles -- there's no indication that he would have provided
14
that.
15
So the fact of the offer is suggestive of a fact
Now, what would be okay:
Any chats on the website
16
that DPR was handing off the website or that Mr. Ulbricht,
17
during the time that he was in charge of Silk Road by his own
18
admission or by his counsel's assertion, was handing off the
19
website; evidence as to whether or not, for instance, Ross
20
Ulbricht, when he was being viewed by law enforcement and they
21
were tailing him, which this information has some information
22
about, he may have limited information, but whether or not Ross
23
Ulbricht was going to work, for instance.
24
office, was he doing something else, does he effectively have
25
an alibi defense?
Was he going to an
Are there reviews of bank accounts that

(212) 805-0300
582
F1KGULB1
Trial
reveal information that indicate payroll coming in from a third
party?
Silk Road commissions looking at the account numbers and
tracing the numbers through?
Is there evidence that another account was receiving
He can challenge the recollection of the website,
challenge the buys, challenge the facts relating to the arrest.
He can also seek to introduce evidence that others were tied to
the servers; that there were other individuals who were leasing
the servers; that Mark Karpeles or somebody else was leasing
10
the servers; that Mark Karpeles did any number of things, X, Y,
11
Z; that Mark Karpeles had a website if he's able to show it
12
through a witness with competent technical evidence that the
13
website had certain aspects of its platform that were
14
replicated in the platform of Silk Road, that would be fair
15
game.
16
fairly asked, which is, was Mark Karpeles running MtGox?
17
That's perfectly appropriate.
18
Mr. Dratel asked were absolutely appropriate and are supportive
19
of the defense theory.
20
were the ones that strayed into the words "belief" and
21
"conclusion," but where they were simply asking about facts,
22
they are perfectly appropriate.
23
There are other questions which were asked which were
Many of the questions that
The questions that were not appropriate
(Continued on next page)
24
25
(212) 805-0300
583
F1kdulb2
1
THE COURT:
So what we'll have to do -- and that's the
Court's ruling on this.
defendant wanted to go into in terms of exploring the search
warrant application is off limits, because the very question
that was to be asked, which is what are the four sources of
information that you had, X, Y, Z, and then, based on that,
what did you do next.
they seem to be clear in this regard -- so long as he is able
to present the witness -- the defendant is able to present
10
direct evidence of his own defense of another perpetrator,
11
getting the speculation of a third party, even the
12
investigator, is an improper way to proceed.
13
Much of what, as a result, the
Now having reviewed the cases -- and
So those questions, in that way, are off limits.
But
14
the other questions of direct evidence through this witness,
15
who had a lot to do with the Silk Road website, so if he
16
happened to look at all the chats and looked at all the chats
17
of DPR and/or any account associated with this witness, he can
18
be crossed on whether or not there is clear evidence of a
19
handoff.
20
draw its inference as to whether there was or was not a
21
handoff.
22
a handoff, but he could certainly present evidence in that
23
regard; there is no doubt about that.
24
25
And the jury will then be given the opportunity to
This witness cannot say whether there was or was not
What we should do, I think, is there are some

questions.
I've got a whole bunch of them that are flagged

(212) 805-0300
584
F1kdulb2
1
here.
I am happy to hand over my copy of the transcript to
counsel for everybody to review.
the extent anybody wants to go back on certain Q and A's and to
the "belief" questions and the "conclusion" questions, which
were allowed to go, I don't want to just do a global strike
because many of the questions were fine.
going to be which ones do you want to strike and does the
government have a view as to how to do this without creating
more problems?
10
You need to figure out, to
So the question is
So I'm not going to do it when the jury first comes
11
out.
12
to be very specific and have you folks confer on it.
13
I flagged things, I flagged things which I think are also
14
appropriate.
15
will jump out as you as unobjected-to questions that, based
16
upon the Court's review of all the case law, I now believe
17
would have had appropriate objections sustained but they were
18
let go.
19
eliminate things which the defendant elicited fairly, and we
20
have to be careful as we proceed now that we do have a live
21
objection.
22
23
24
25
I will take it up at another time.
And I would like it

But when
You will see, based upon what I just said, what
So let's take it step-by-step because I don't want to
All right.
Mr. Dratel, I know you don't agree with my
ruling, but do you understand the parameters that I have set?

MR. DRATEL:
I think so.
I have to say, though, that
with respect to the offer by the attorney, it is not about -SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
585
F1kdulb2
1
it is not about whether he actually had information.
fact that someone who is under investigation is offering to
implicate someone else in return for immunity from all charges
that the government could bring against them -- money,
business, or whatever.
anything, and all the cases are not about proving --
THE COURT:
It is the
And also, we don't have to prove
You don't have to prove anything.
But if
you want to rebut something through cross-examination, there
are limits.
This is part of what comes up in the 30 cases
10
which you all cited to me and my own research.
11
course, there are limits to cross-examination when we start to
12
get too far afield.
13
what was the outcome of the interview?
14
who doesn't have that.
15
MR. DRATEL:
16
THE COURT:
You know, of
Because the next question will be, well,

And this is a witness
This is his own question -No.
No.
No.
The government will have to
17
be able to get that.
18
show that there was another perpetrator.
19
foreclosing your, you know, your attempt to build that defense
20
theory by showing that your client, or whomever had certain
21
user names, whatever the user names are, handed off
22
administrative capabilities to somebody else to take over that
23
role for some period of time.
24
MR. DRATEL:
25
And it is too far afield.
So you can
I am by no means
But that is not the standard in these
other cases, and the reversals and Ercole, Alvarez v. Ercole is

(212) 805-0300
586
F1kdulb2
1
a perfect example and --
THE COURT:
Mr. Dratel, I have read those cases, and I
believe that they are squarely distinguishable.
Ercole case, as you know, was a very particular kind of case
where not only had somebody else been implicated but somebody
else had been essentially shown to be likely to be the guy.
And they just didn't -- they had the name.
number, or the contact information.
was.
They had the phone
I can't remember how it
And then they just failed to follow up.
10
MR. DRATEL:
I mean the
It is different.
But it's only different as a matter of
11
degree.
12
cross-examination as to that issue which was the basis for the
13
reversal.
14
to have a photograph of DPR and it is not Mr. Ulbricht.
15
establish it by inference.
16
establishing its case by inference.
17
If the failure to -- it was the refusal to permit
And it was not -- and it is not a question of I have
THE COURT:
I can
And just the way the government is
You could certainly establish it by
18
inference, but that is why I want to differentiate between
19
you've got to have some information that Karpeles in fact
20
either had information on DPR or that's reliable, and/or if you
21
are going to build Karpeles up as -- is it your view that
22
Karpeles was not the real DPR, or is it your view that he was
23
the real DPR?
24
MR. DRATEL:
25
THE COURT:
My view is that he could be the real DPR.

Do you have any information, other what

(212) 805-0300
587
F1kdulb2
1
you brought out and what is in the 3500 material, that you can
proffer that draws the connection that the Wade case and the
other caress say you have to have before we go off on this
road?
MR. DRATEL:
I can do cross-examination.
I'm not
required to have a witness who comes up and does that.
other information about the fact that there are multiple --
just so it is clear what our theory is.
Mr. Ulbricht created the website, got out a couple of month
10
later, did not come back in at any point until the very end,
11
was not in at the very end.
12
was not operating the website.
13
the evidence shows about what was on his laptop, fine, we will
14
explain.
15
THE COURT:
16
MR. DRATEL:
17
THE COURT:
We have
Our theory is that
He was not in a conspiracy, and he

The fact that he had -- what
OK.
But -All of that, of course, you are welcome to
18
explain, and you are certainly welcome to cross-examine this
19
witness.
20
careful -- and with the Ercole case, it is a 2014 case.
21
an unusual case because it is a reversal of a state court case.
22
There is a remand on habeas.
23
I'm comfortable.
24
than once in the context of this and other cases.
25
comfortable with my ruling.
I'll tell you.
I feel very comfortable in a

It is
I read it a couple of times.
But
I've also read the Kiley v. White case more

(212) 805-0300
I'm
588
F1kdulb2
1
2
My question to you right now, so we can get going, is

do you understand the parameters of what you can ask?
MR. DRATEL:
I think so.
But I just need to complete
the record just to preserve it, because with respect to Kyles
v. Whitley, the Supreme Court case, Beany, the alleged
alternative perpetrator, they didn't have proof.
all through the police investigation.
additional witnesses.
They did it
They didn't have
They had the police.
And this is combined with the police investigation
10
issue.
11
about -- it is not just about whether it was shoddy but it is
12
about other things that I'll get into on cross with this
13
witness that I don't think are objectionable at all because
14
they go to motivations and other things in terms of the
15
investigation.
16
can build that by inference.
17
cross and by inference.
18
They are inextricable in many respects, and it is not
So that's all part of the same piece.
THE COURT:
And I
I am permitted to do that by
You are permitted to do that through
19
competence evidence through cross and through inference.
20
question is going to be what is appropriate for this witness to
21
speak to, and it will be things that he perceived with one of
22
his senses, as witnesses do, as opposed to what he may have
23
held as a belief at one point in time.
24
MR. DRATEL:
25
THE COURT:
The
I understand that part.

I am not going to let them ask did you

(212) 805-0300
589
F1kdulb2
1
believe Ulbricht did it, tell me.
tell me the 27 reasons why.
And then, yes, by the way,
That would be --
MR. DRATEL:
That would be his direct.
THE COURT:
That would be his redirect.
MR. DRATEL:
THE COURT:
7
8
I am saying that would be his direct.

No.
Well, you are talking about those are
inferences versus his conclusions.

All right.
So if you have any questions about a
particular issue that you want to raise that I am not letting
10
you raise, then present it to me, but otherwise we'll proceed
11
with this.
12
that came in.
13
will be up to really the government's burden to figure out what
14
portions they believe are appropriately struck and then to
15
discuss whether the defense agrees not as to whether or not
16
they agree with the evidentiary ruling but given the Court's
17
parameters, and if the defense does not agree with any of it,
18
then I will just make a ruling.
I'm not right now striking any of the testimony

Frankly, a huge amount came in on Thursday.
19
MR. DRATEL:
20
THE COURT:
It
There is also a waiver aspect of it.

There is a waiver aspect of it.
21
haven't talked about that or briefed it.
22
want to do that right now.
23
interspersed.
24
interspersed with objectionable.
25
Karpeles was out there.
We
That is why I don't
It is complicated because it is
There are completely unobjectionable pieces

You will be able to say
He had the computer expertise.

(212) 805-0300
He
590
F1kdulb2
1
owns Mt. Gox.
There are going to be certain things that are
still going to be, I believe, in the record.
take a look at how the Q and A's come out ultimately, but there
will be facts.
We'll have to
All right.
Mr. Turner.
MR. TURNER:
In terms of -- we can look at the transcript and come
Let's take up the two sidebar issues.
Your Honor, I just wanted to make clear.
up with proposed areas to strike.
I just want to be able to do
10
that before redirect, because if certain testimony is not
11
stricken, then we would want to potentially redirect the
12
witness a certain way to cure testimony that did come in.
13
14
THE COURT:
Can you have some of your colleagues help
you with highlighting what you think?
15
MR. TURNER:
16
THE COURT:
17
MR. TURNER:
18
THE COURT:
Yes, your Honor.

And as little as possible.
Yes, your Honor.
I mean, there is one way of doing it which
19
is, ladies and gentlemen, you heard the witness talking about
20
his belief and views and suspicions about an individual.
21
should disregard those comments because his beliefs and views
22
and suspicions are not relevant.
23
You are going to be presented with the evidence here as to this
24
defendant and anything else that's important for you to
25
consider, and you can decide whether or not that is sufficient
You
It will be for you to decide.

(212) 805-0300
591
F1kdulb2
1
2
to draw those conclusions yourself.

That would be one way of doing it.
And then we would
have to, for purposes of later on, determine if we have
questions later for the jury to have read back, whether or not
some of those pieces are then excised.
MR. TURNER:
OK.
So we'll take a look -- we'll have
somebody on our team take a look at that and see if we can
offer specific testimony to excise before redirect.
THE COURT:
All right.
10
two matters at the sidebar?
11
MR. TURNER:
12
If I understand it, there are
Yes, your Honor.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(212) 805-0300
592
F1kdulb2
1
(At the sidebar)
THE COURT:
MR. TURNER:
All right.
One is simple.
One is more complicated.
The simple one is if my back is turned --
(In open court)
THE COURT:
You know, I'm sorry, could you -- it is OK
for you folks to talk, but could you talk outside because,
actually, we have a hard time hearing because we whisper up
here, or whisper lower so we can hear what we are saying here.
10
(At the sidebar)
11
MR. TURNER:
So while counsel's back is turned as the
12
case is going forward, I have heard from multiple people on my
13
team now and multiple people in the audience that often during
14
sidebars the defendant is turning, making contact with his
15
family and speaking to his family in a way that multiple people
16
have told me seems geared toward generating sympathy.
17
would ask that any such communications be outside the presence
18
of the jury.
19
THE COURT:
20
MR. DRATEL:
So I
Can you speak to your client?

OK.
I mean, you know, obviously his
21
family is here.
They are used to visiting him on a regular
22
basis and they are not going to be able to visit him during
23
trial because he is here.
24
MS. LEWIS:
Because of his move they are not able to
25
visit him at all right now.
They just got that paperwork.

(212) 805-0300
It
593
F1kdulb2
1
may be weeks before they see him, including his sister who is
in from Australia.
with her.
THE COURT:
This may be his only chance to have contact
OK.
I am not concerned about, so long as
there is no inappropriate communication with him, just turning
and saying "Hi, mom" at some point when the jury is not in the
room, because there are lots of times -- now, for instance --
when the jury is not in the room.
room, he should just continue looking forward.
10
11
But when the jury is in the
By the way, we are going to move the -- we did move

the monitor.
Terrific.
12
So you will tell him.
13
MR. DRATEL:
14
(Pages 594 through 614 sealed by order of the Court)
15
I will.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(212) 805-0300
615
F1kdulb2
1
(In open court)
THE COURT:
We're going to go until 1 o'clock, as
opposed to 12:45.
waiting around, I have had Joe order lunch for the jury to be
brought in sort of an attempt to do something for them.
we'll go right 'til 1 o'clock.
sentencing in here.
need to have space, probably actually on this side because it
will be somebody who has a marshal there.
10
11
12
Because of the fact that the jury had to be
But
At 1 o'clock I have a
It is a narcotics case.
And so I will
People are welcome
to stay for that but I will need room on the tables.

Go ahead and bring in the jury, Joe.
Oh, the witness.
Is the witness coming?
13
THE CLERK:
Yes.
14
(Pause)
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(212) 805-0300
616
F1kdulb2
1
THE CLERK:
(Jury present)
THE COURT:
4
5
All rise as the jury enters.
All right.
Ladies and gentlemen, let's
all be seated.
And I want to apologize for our late start today.
couple of different things result from that.
We do have lunch
coming in for you folks.
we'll stop for our lunch break.
have these kinds of things take up your time, and we'll try to
We will go to 1 o'clock and then

I do apologize.
We try not to
10
use your time as efficiently as we can.
11
that delay unless it was necessary, and I do apologize.
12
I want to remind you, sir, Mr. Der-Yeghiayan, that you
13
are still under oath.
14
THE WITNESS:
15
JARED DER-YEGHIAYAN,
16
We wouldn't have had
OK.
Resumed, and testified further as follows:
17
THE COURT:
Mr. Dratel, you may proceed, sir.
18
MR. DRATEL:
19
THE COURT:
20
Ladies and gentlemen, from time to time in documents
Thank you, your Honor.

Oh, one thing.
I had a note to myself.
21
you see redactions, which are just sort of black marks through
22
documents.
23
irrelevant, and so just don't even think about it.
24
of ignore it.
25
That is just because certain information is
Proceed.
(212) 805-0300
Just sort
617
F1kdulb2
1
MR. DRATEL:
Thank you.
CROSS-EXAMINATION (Resumed)
BY MR. DRATEL:
Q.
Good afternoon, Agent Der-Yeghiayan.
A.
Good afternoon.
Q.
Have you ever heard of someone with a username "inlightof"?
A.
I have.
Q.
And have you ever identified that person?
A.
No, I did not.
10
Q.
And that was a person you were looking at at some point as
11
DPR, right?
12
MR. TURNER:
13
THE COURT:
Objection.
Form.
Sustained.
14
Q.
And we talked the other day about "peaceloveharmony,"
15
someone with that username, right?
16
A.
Yes.
17
Q.
That was someone who was, as you described it, sitting on
18
DPR's profile for a few hours a couple of days before
19
Mr. Ulbricht was arrested, right?
20
A.
Yes.
21
Q.
And you had asked your law enforcement colleagues whether
22
it was them, and the people on the arrest team, it wasn't any
23
of them, correct?
24
A.
That is the reply I got, yes.
25
Q.
And did you ever learn who peaceloveharmony was?

(212) 805-0300
618
F1kdulb2
Der-Yeghiayan - cross
A.
Not that I can recall.
Q.
Now, was there a user or someone named Mr. Wonderful?
3
4
MR. TURNER:
Q.
Objection.
Do you recall that?
MR. TURNER:
Objection.
401.
MR. DRATEL:
I didn't hear the objection.
MR. TURNER:
401.
THE COURT:
I don't know why it would apply.
Hold on one second.

I will allow a
10
few -- let me allow a few questions to develop that.
11
BY MR. DRATEL:
12
Q.
Mr. Wonderful was involved with Scout, correct?
13
A.
Yes, he was.
14
Q.
And who was Mr. Wonderful?
15
16
MR. TURNER:
Q.
Objection.
Foundation.
If you know.
17
THE COURT:
If you know.
18
MR. TURNER:
19
THE COURT:
20
You made proceed.
Just testify if you know.
Objection to form.
I will allow it.
21
A.
Mr. Wonderful was operated by another HSI agent.
22
Q.
And was there a question -- was there a discussion between
23
Scout and DPR about Mr. Wonderful?
24
25
MR. TURNER:
Q.
Objection.
Form.
In the forums or in the private messaging system that you

(212) 805-0300
619
F1kdulb2
1
were able to monitor?
2
3
THE COURT:
A.
On the forums you are asking?
Q.
form or another.
A.
them.
Q.
No.
Between DPR and Scout on the Silk Road system in one
Later on I learned of that there was discussion between
And that was one of the reasons for a falling out between
DPR and Scout?
11
MR. TURNER:
12
THE COURT:
13
A.
14
15
Overruled.
I believe there was.
10
I will allow it.
Objection.
Yes.
Foundation.
So that is sustained.
That -THE COURT:
No.
That was sustained.
So he will ask
another question.
16
THE WITNESS:
Sorry.
17
BY MR. DRATEL:
18
Q.
19
Mr. Wonderful was law enforcement, correct?
But there was talk between Scout and DPR about whether
20
MR. TURNER:
21
THE COURT:
Objection.
Foundation.
Well, I think that the issue is did you
22
actually review the communications between Scout and
23
Mr. Wonderful?
24
MR. DRATEL:
No, between Scout and DPR, your Honor.
25
THE COURT:
Did you review the communications between

(212) 805-0300
620
F1kdulb2
1
Scout and DPR?
THE WITNESS:
I can't recall if I did.
I know there
were some that were shared at a later date, but I don't know if
there actually was, if I actually saw the screenshots or this
was something that was told to me.
THE COURT:
I want you to put aside something that may
have been told to you but in terms of what you recall seeing,
go ahead, and, Mr. Dratel, you can ask the question in that
context.
10
Q.
There was discussion between DPR and Scout as to whether or
11
not Mr. Wonderful was law enforcement, right?
12
MR. TURNER:
13
THE COURT:
The same objection.

Well, if he knows.
14
A.
I don't recall seeing screenshots.
There may have been
15
some that were shared at a later date but I can't recall seeing
16
them.
17
Q.
18
was law enforcement, or she, was the reason that DPR took over
19
Scout's account for awhile?
And do you recall that Mr. Wonderful and whether or not he
20
MR. TURNER:
21
THE COURT:
Objection to form.
Sustained.
Foundation.
You may re-ask it.
22
Q.
Well, DPR took over Scout's account for awhile, correct?
23
A.
Yes.
24
Q.
And wasn't that in order to investigate the Mr. Wonderful
25
situation?
(212) 805-0300
621
F1kdulb2
MR. TURNER:
THE COURT:
I think the issue is do you have any
THE WITNESS:
That was relayed through a source later
on, yes.
6
7
401.
information regarding why DPR took over that account?
4
5
Objection.
THE COURT:
Let's put aside what you may have heard
from a third, a person, a source.
THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
That's a person?
Yes.
OK.
Did you see any information in
10
connection with your review of the screenshots of Silk Road
11
that indicated to you, at least words on a page, as to why
12
DPR --
13
THE WITNESS:
Took over that account?
14
THE COURT:
15
THE WITNESS:
16
THE COURT:
17
MR. DRATEL:
18
(Pause)
19
Could you look up Government's Exhibit 126A.
20
It is in evidence.
Took over that account.

Not that I could recall.
All right.
You may proceed.
21
A.
OK.
22
Q.
Take a look at where it says, "Hey, gang," do you see that
23
post?
24
A.
Yes.
25
Q.
This is July 12, 2013, right?

(212) 805-0300
622
F1kdulb2
A.
Yes.
Q.
So you reviewed a lot of communications involving --
withdrawn.
Here it says "Cirrus," right?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And Cirrus is the same as Scout, right?
A.
The person that originally operated the Scout account
created the Cirrus account, correct.
Q.
10
right?
11
12
And this is kind of when they created the Cirrus account,
MR. TURNER:
Q.
13
Objection to form.
It says "post," as far as we know?

THE COURT:
I will allow it.
14
A.
This is about the timeframe, yes.
15
Q.
And you reviewed these; this is not when you were operating
16
the account, right?
17
A.
This is not when I was operating the account.
18
Q.
So you reviewed a whole host of Cirrus and, before that,
19
Scout's messages, right?
20
A.
21
account, yes.
22
Q.
23
going to be playing that part, you really have to know what's
24
going on, right?
25
A.
There were other messages that I reviewed that were in the
And one of the reasons you did that is because if you are
That is correct.
(212) 805-0300
623
F1kdulb2
Q.
So let's read it:
going by the name Cirrus.
Cirrus has always been dedicated to our common goals and the
community at large and we've put what happened surrounding
Mr. Wonderful behind us so he can come back to the team."
"Hey, gang, we have a new moderator

We used to know him as Scout.
Right?
A.
Yes.
Q.
So reading that, you had to find out what was going on with
Mr. Wonderful, right?
10
A.
I was talking to that agent at the time so they had the
11
idea --
12
MR. TURNER:
13
THE COURT:
Objection.
Hearsay.
Don't go into what your conversation was
14
with that agent, but you could talk about what steps you took.
15
Q.
16
Mr. Wonderful?
17
A.
18
read that.
19
Q.
20
December of 2011, correct?
21
A.
That sounds about right, yes.
22
Q.
And also around that time Silk Road instituted a new
23
bitcoin system, right?
Did you go back and read posts having to do with
I didn't have access to the Scout account to go back to

I only had access to the Cirrus account.
Now, the URL, the onion address for Silk Road, changed in
24
MR. TURNER:
25
THE COURT:
Objection.
Foundation.
Hold on for one second.

(212) 805-0300
624
F1kdulb2
MR. TURNER:
THE COURT:
testify if you know a fact.
4
5
Well, if you know.
As to everything, only
Don't speculate or guess.
And so the question is do you know whether or not

around that time Silk Road instituted a new bitcoin system?
6
7
804.
THE WITNESS:
I don't recall about a new bitcoin
system.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(212) 805-0300
625
F1kgulb3
BY MR. DRATEL:
Q.
to review the last paragraph and when you've done that, let me
know.
A.
Okay.
Q.
Does that refresh your recollection that as of December 30,
2011, Silk Road instituted a new bitcoin system?
A.
to deposit bitcoins, so it was something that was different
I'll show you what's marked as 3505-3602 and ask you just
I believe what it did is it -- it allowed multiple accounts
10
about the bitcoin system, yes.
11
Q.
They instituted a change?
12
A.
As far as I recall, yes.
13
Q.
Now, in June of 2011, the site Silk Road went down for a
14
little bit, right?
15
MR. TURNER:
Objection; time frame, form.
16
THE COURT:
17
June of 2011?
18
MR. DRATEL:
19
THE COURT:
Hold on.
Yes.
All right.
If that's your recollection,
20
you may testify.
Go ahead.
21
A.
I wasn't aware of Silk Road at that time.
22
Q.
That's not my question.
23
went down, right?
24
MR. TURNER:
25
THE COURT:
You know that in 2011 the site
Objection; foundation.
Well, the foundation is only about what

(212) 805-0300
626
F1kgulb3
he -- I don't want you to say anything you don't know.
point in time over the course of your investigation, did you
learn that in June of 2011 -- did you learn whether or not in
June of 2011 a new bitcoin system was implemented?
MR. DRATEL:
THE COURT:
No.
At any
It's about the site going down now.
Do you know whether or not the site went
down in June of 2011, not what you knew in June 2011, but later
on did you ever learn that there had been an outage?
THE WITNESS:
There were posts that reflect that I
10
believe on the forums, and there's I think articles that said
11
that, yes.
12
Q.
13
saying "Silk Road is currently closed to visitors; this will be
14
reviewed on July first and the site will probably be reopened
15
sorry for the inconvenience."
16
MR. TURNER:
17
So that in June 5, 2011, the website posted a message
THE COURT:
I think that he's talked about his
Did you ever determine whether or not the site had in

fact gone down?
22
THE WITNESS:
23
THE COURT:
24
25
This document is
recollection.
20
21
not in evidence.
18
19
Right?
I couldn't confirm it, no.

One way -- did you try one way or the
other?
THE WITNESS:
There was no way for me to.

(212) 805-0300
627
F1kgulb3
1
2
THE COURT:
gone down.
It might have gone down, it might not have
You don't know for sure?
THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
Q.
I don't know for sure.

You can continue.
But that post was made, right?
MR. TURNER:
THE COURT:
Objection; hearsay.
I'm going to allow it.
A.
The post was made; yes.
Q.
And there were posts --
10
THE COURT:
Let me be clear, with that particular
11
objection, that means that the witness is testifying about what
12
he saw or read.
13
saw a post with those words on it that had that information on
14
it.
15
Q.
16
right?
17
A.
I'm sorry?
18
Q.
It might not have been a technical problem with the site.
19
It could have been another reason why that post was made,
20
right?
He doesn't know if it's true or not, but he
Whether it's true or not is another question.

It could have been some other reason why the post was made,
21
MR. TURNER:
22
THE COURT:
Objection; calls for speculation.

Don't speculate.
Sustained.
23
Q.
And the silkroadmarket.org, the page that was available on
24
the ordinary Internet that you testified about, that stopped
25
operating in April of 2012, correct?

(212) 805-0300
628
F1kgulb3
A.
That's correct.
Q.
Now, with respect to forum posts, with respect to PGP keys
that we were talking about, right, last week, there's no
customized version of a PGP key?
Withdrawn.
A PGP key is generated by a computer at random, right?
A.
It's created when you create a new key; yes, it's created
by the computer.
Q.
about the person who is creating the key, in other words, their
10
initials or anything or numbers or any kind of -- it's not like
11
a password where you would choose to put in the identifying
12
information so that you'd remember it, right?
13
A.
14
enter in certain information, like a name or an email address.
15
Q.
No, I'm talking about the PGP key.
16
A.
Okay.
17
Q.
The PGP key is not like a password in the sense that you
18
put in identifying information.
19
computer?
20
A.
You're saying, like, the output?
21
Q.
Yeah, the actual key, the text block?
22
A.
Yeah.
23
Q.
And with respect to -- talked about computers and UTC time.
24
In fact, you yourself acknowledged in one of the chats that UTC
25
time -- you assumed that all the computers were on UTC time?
So it doesn't have any specific identifying information
Just on the profile itself can you -- it's customizable to
It's generated by the
It's random digits and numbers; yes.

(212) 805-0300
629
F1kgulb3
1
Essentially the computers ran on UTC time, right?
MR. TURNER:
Objection; form, hearsay and relevance.
THE COURT:
Why don't you restate the question.
Hold on one second.
Let me read it.
of that question.
Q.
essentially all our computers are on UTC time?
I'll allow a form
You recall a chat with DPR in which you said that
MR. TURNER:
THE COURT:
10
Objection; form and foundation.

I will allow it.
You may answer.
11
A.
I believe there was a chat, yeah, that we were talking
12
about the servers for Silk Road.
13
Q.
14
identification and ask you just to review it.
15
A.
Okay.
16
Q.
Do you recognize it?
17
A.
It's a screen shot that I would have taken of a chat that
18
was on the computer --
19
Q.
Between you and DPR?
20
A.
No, the person that operated before.
21
Q.
And so, I --
I'll show you what's marked as Defendant's F for
22
MR. DRATEL:
I move it in evidence, your Honor.
23
MR. TURNER:
I have several objections, first "the
24
person who operated before" needs to be clarified.
25
being offered for truth, then we object on hearsay grounds.

(212) 805-0300
And if it's
630
F1kgulb3
1
THE COURT:
Somebody needs to hand me a copy of this
document.
MR. DRATEL:
THE COURT:
I'm sorry.
That's all right.
know if I needed to look at it.
take a quick look.
All right.
THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
THE COURT:
12
THE WITNESS:
13
THE COURT:
All right.
11
Let me
And how about July 23?
I was not.
You were not cirrus on July 23rd?
No.
All right.
Did you take this screen shot
that's been marked as Defense Exhibit F as in frank?
15
THE WITNESS:
16
THE COURT:
Yes, I believe.
And you took it on or about August 2 at
the top left?
18
THE WITNESS:
19
THE COURT:
20
I have the witness'.
August 2, I was; yes.
THE WITNESS:
17
I didn't
As of August 2, 2013, were you cirrus?
10
14
That's okay.
That would be correct; yes.

Was it a true and accurate reflection of
what appeared on that page at the time you took it?
21
THE WITNESS:
22
THE COURT:
It is.
All right.
I will allow this in, but the
23
content of the messages themselves are not in for the truth,
24
but you can proceed, Mr. Dratel.
25
MR. DRATEL:

(212) 805-0300
631
F1kgulb3
1
(Defendant's Exhibit F received in evidence)
Q.
we all live in UTC (or our computers anyway.)"
A.
I do, yes.
Q.
And that's because essentially computers can be configured
to run on any timezone, right?
MR. TURNER:
THE COURT:
Q.
See where it says "cirrus."
It says "I always just assume

Right?
Sustained.
A computer can be configured so that the timezone on the
10
computer can be anything that the operator inputs, right, the
11
person who is operating the computer?
12
A.
That's correct.
13
Q.
Now, we talked -- you said that you had seen some messages
14
in which the DPR PGP key had not been validated, correct?
15
A.
16
able to validate a signed message by him, but then that would
17
follow up with him I think reissuing another signature.
18
19
I believe there were times that he -- other people weren't
MR. TURNER:
Q.
20
You saw this on the site?

THE COURT:
21
is struck.
22
Q.
23
Objection; hearsay.
The objection is sustained and that answer
But you saw that on the site?

THE COURT:
24
we'll get a clean --
25
Q.
Why don't you reask the question and then
There were some times when the signature was not valid,
(212) 805-0300
632
F1kgulb3
1
correct?
MR. TURNER:
THE COURT:
Let's start the question over again and
then we'll take it one by one, because if he saw with his own
eyes these kinds of things, then he can testify to it.
Mr. Dratel, you may proceed.
MR. DRATEL:
Q.
So you saw instances in which the PGP key was not validated
from a message from DPR, correct?
10
MR. TURNER:
11
THE COURT:
12
You saw that on the forum?
Same objection; form and foundation.

First of all, did you ever see -- were any
of your messages that you tried to validate not validated?
13
THE WITNESS:
14
THE COURT:
Not that I did; no.

During the course of the time that you
15
were using the Silk Road website, did you become aware of
16
others who at least indicated that they had messages that had
17
not been validated?
18
THE WITNESS:
There were times that there were posts
19
made that the -- that another user might say that they can't
20
validate a signature.
21
22
THE COURT:
Did you follow up to determine whether or
not you could validate that particular message on your own?
23
THE WITNESS:
24
THE COURT:
25
I did not.
So you don't know whether it's, in fact,
the case that they couldn't validate it or if they were just

(212) 805-0300
633
F1kgulb3
1
saying that?
THE WITNESS:
for them at the time.
THE COURT:
THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
I don't know why it wasn't validating
Q.
top part.
But you saw it there?
You saw the posts?
I did see the posts.

All right.
Government Exhibit 127B, please, if we could focus on the
Do you see the part right above 6:12:15 p.m. where it
10
says "encrypted OTR chat initiated."
And then it says "dread@"
11
and there's an onion address, and it says "identity not
12
verified."
13
A.
I do.
14
Q.
And that essentially comes before every one of these Pidgin
15
chats, right?
16
A.
17
initiated a chat.
18
Q.
And you said you used a program called Adium, right?
19
A.
That's correct.
20
Q.
And Adium gives you the ability to authenticate the other
21
side of the chat, correct --
22
A.
I'm not aware --
23
Q.
-- in a way that can verify what's not verified on that?
24
A.
I honestly don't know if it can or cannot.
25
Q.
But you never did that -- you didn't use any kind of
Right?
I believe that, yeah, it was on every time that we

(212) 805-0300
634
F1kgulb3
verification process in your chats with DPR, correct, like
that?
A.
No, I did not.
Q.
And on your side, you said that there were certain accounts
that could have more than even one agent working, right?
A.
What type of accounts?
Q.
In other words, Silk Road accounts; there are certain Silk
Road accounts that were operated by more than one agent?
A.
There were ones from time to time, yes, they were operated
10
by multiple agents.
11
Q.
12
that, an unverified chat, whether there's more than one person
13
or who it is on the other side, correct, other than someone
14
coming on as dread, right?
15
A.
16
that, no.
17
Q.
18
Government Exhibit 130, and this is the piece of paper
19
recovered from the trash from Mr. Ulbricht's apartment in San
20
Francisco when you searched it after his arrest, right?
21
A.
Yes, it is.
22
Q.
And it's got notes about ratings, right?
23
A.
That's correct.
24
Q.
Let's go to Government Exhibit 131, please.
25
down to the bottom, the bottom of -- I guess also 130A, no.
So there's nothing to tell you whether on the other side of
There's no way of knowing how many people are operating
Now, I want to go to Government Exhibit 130, please,

(212) 805-0300
So if we go
635
F1kgulb3
1
I'm sorry.
One second.
If we can enlarge that a little bit.
So this a process, going to the first post, and the
posts go from bottom to top essentially, not chronologically.
The oldest post would be at the bottom and the newest post
would be at the top?
MR. TURNER:
THE COURT:
MR. DRATEL:
131.
THE COURT:
GX 131.
10
MR. TURNER:
11
THE WITNESS:
I don't recognize this exhibit.

What exhibit is this?
I see.
Okay.
Third page.
Yes, I believe so.
12
Q.
So, the first date that this starts is in August, right,
13
2013?
14
A.
For this --
15
Q.
August 11, 2013?
16
A.
Yes, I believe so.
17
Q.
And it talks about undergoing an overhaul of the ratings
18
system, right?
19
A.
It does.
20
Q.
And this is DPR initiating it, right?
21
A.
It is.
22
Q.
And then there's another post on the 31st of August, right?
23
A.
Correct.
24
Q.
And then there's another post on the 12th of September,
25
right?
(212) 805-0300
636
F1kgulb3
A.
Yes.
Q.
And these posts contain detailed discussion mostly from DPR
about ideas for the ratings overhaul, right?
A.
They do.
Q.
So that's been going on as of the date of Mr. Ulbricht's
arrest, it's been going on for seven weeks or so, right?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And these handwritten notes found in the trash are related
to a project that DPR has been posting about for two months?
10
A.
It appears so, yes.
11
Q.
And he needed to take notes from this?
12
13
MR. TURNER:
Objection; calls for speculation,
foundation.
14
THE COURT:
Sustained.
15
Q.
16
find money, right, bitcoin, correct?
17
A.
Yes, it was.
18
Q.
And we went back on Thursday, bitcoin is anonymous but
19
there's a block chain that has every transaction, right?
20
A.
Yes, it does.
21
Q.
And it's public?
22
A.
Yes, it is.
23
Q.
At some point, in October of 2012, Silk Road split some of
24
its accounts up?
25
Now, an important part of your investigation was trying to
MR. TURNER:

(212) 805-0300
637
F1kgulb3
THE COURT:
Hold on one second.
You can come back at it.
Sustained.
Q.
Did your investigation establish that Silk Road had split,
based on your analysis of the block chain of Silk Road looking
for accounts that could be linked to Silk Road, that Silk Road
had split a main account into other accounts?
MR. TURNER:
THE COURT:
Q.
Objection; same objection, form.

Sustained.
At some point you identified some of the Silk Road
10
accounts, correct?
11
A.
Yes, there were accounts we believed belonged to Silk Road.
12
Q.
That was in April 2012, right?
13
A.
I believe the date is -- sounds right, yes.
14
Q.
And part of what you're looking for is movement of
15
bitcoins, people cashing out accounts in unusual amounts,
16
correct, in large amounts?
17
A.
18
to see if it would hit something that would look like it
19
belongs to the website and we were also trying to trace funds
20
out of the website, too.
21
We were trying to see if we could trace the funds going in
22
THE COURT:
point, we're at 1:00 now.
23
MR. DRATEL:
24
THE COURT:
25
Mr. Dratel, when you reach a stopping
now.
Okay.
We can stop now.
I apologize, but we're going to take lunch
I know we just started about 40 minutes ago.

(212) 805-0300
We'll come
638
F1kgulb3
back at 2:00.
We're not going to extend the day at all.
as we had previously said, 5:00.
We're still going to get you out on time today.

You'll get out right
I want to remind you not to talk to each other or
anybody else about this case.
lunch.
Thanks very much.
(Jury excused)
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(212) 805-0300
See you after
639
F1kgulb3
(In open court; jury not present)
THE COURT:
The witness can be excused for lunch, as
well.
(Witness temporarily excused)
THE COURT:
Ladies and gentlemen, be seated for a
moment.
to raise one thing.
let's do it quickly; otherwise, we'll take it up just before
two.
10
I have a matter in this room right now.
I just want
You folks may want to raise something and
What I want to raise is I see the government now is
11
objecting a lot, as is your right to do if you believe the
12
questions are objectionable.
13
things were being handled before.
14
It is a difference from how
I think you'll do what you need to do, but if there's
15
anything that people believe they can do in terms of the
16
formulation -- now, that you know, Mr. Dratel the government is
17
going to object --
18
MR. DRATEL:
19
THE COURT:
On every question, yes.

In terms of form, you can refrain some of
20
the questions and we can avoid some of that.
21
way we were proceeding before.
22
given to people to speak in sort of regular formed sentences,
23
but I'm not suggesting the government doesn't have a right to
24
object.
25
we figure out how whether it's going to continue to each
You do.
That was not the
There was a little more leeway
But we'll just all take into consideration as

(212) 805-0300
640
F1kgulb3
question because it will take longer so you might want to pick
a few.
3
4
MR. DRATEL:
wants to do.
5
6
The government is free to do what it
MR. TURNER:
I don't want to go down the same road we
went before.
THE COURT:
I understand.
I think that there are
objections which are objections that you really need to make,
and then there are objections where there certainly may be a
10
legal basis for it, but the better part of valor is to stand
11
down.
12
You'll make your decision and what I mean, Mr. Dratel,
13
in terms of the government being free to do what it wants to do
14
is only insofar as anybody can object when you folks believe
15
that you need to do so to preserve the record, and that's an
16
important thing for you folks to do.
17
if you believe it's important, but there are lots of objections
18
that are neither here nor there ultimately.
19
decide.
20
they are for the defense.
21
22
Everybody needs to do it
You guys will
The rules are no different from the government than
Let's take our lunch break and we'll come back at

2:00.
23
(Luncheon recess)
24
25
(212) 805-0300
641
F1kgulb3
Trial
AFTERNOON SESSION
2:08 p.m.
THE COURT:
We are still waiting for one juror.
Actually, I have one jury matter and I want to discuss with you
folks how to deal with the struck testimony.
On the jury matter, there's one juror who has got
apparently issues with her place of employment which will
not -- their HR policy and whether or not we can overcome this
10
is TBD, we're going to try to overcome this -- indicates that
11
they can have two weeks paid for jury service and then after
12
that it has to come out of her vacation.
13
not present certain issues for this juror.
14
determine whether or not her place of employment would see fit
15
to make an exception in that she's already been impanelled on a
16
jury, and it's not going to end within the time frame that
17
she's got.
18
And that may or may

So we're trying to
If they say no, then we'll have to determine how we
19
want to approach her about that.
In discussions with counsel,
20
the Court will discuss that with counsel, how people propose we
21
should proceed and whether or not, if she is very concerned,
22
whether or not on that basis we do anything about that,
23
including replacing her with one of the alternates.
24
be determined.
25
has come up today.
That's to
I just wanted to flag for you that that issue

(212) 805-0300
642
F1kgulb3
1
Trial
I have received from the government an email that was
copied to counsel, all counsel, that has their proposal as to
excerpts to be stricken based upon the Court's prior ruling.
Mr. Dratel had mentioned before that the Court had not
yet entertained arguments as to waiver, and that is correct, or
any other arguments other than rearguing the Court's
evidentiary ruling.
to have to deal with this when the redirect is likely to begin.
9
10
Also I need to know how soon we're going
Mr. Dratel, let's take the last question first.
How
much more on cross do you have of Mr. Der-Yeghiayan?
11
MR. DRATEL:
With the exception of one question that
12
I'll ask the Court, which is whether I'm going to go at all
13
into the second person, I'm not sure whether I'm allowed to go
14
at all into the second alternative suspect, whether that's
15
something --
16
17
THE COURT:
with the mises.org piece.
18
MR. DRATEL:
19
THE COURT:
20
23
Right.
If there are other aspects of it that I'm
unaware of, we can take it step by step and see.
21
22
The main issue that we had dealt with was
MR. DRATEL:
So, between an hour, an hour and-a-half I
THE COURT:
So probably then, it's likely to be a time
guess.
24
for break, but do you want to now preview your waiver argument?
25
I think I understand just with the word "waiver" possibly the

(212) 805-0300
643
F1kgulb3
Trial
contour of what you're getting at, but I'd like to give you a
chance to state it for the record.
if you'd rather not do it right now.
MR. DRATEL:
We can do it at the break
I can do it at the break in a way
that -- the waiver is really three parts:
One is, they didn't
object, and you can't put that genie back this the bottle in
any respects.
respects even under the Court's ruling.
that, you know, it changes the whole nature of how an
The second is, they're not objectionable in many

And the third would be
10
examination proceeds and that's one of the reasons why you have
11
to object contemporaneously because then you can't go back and
12
reconstruct it in a manner that then undoes things that you
13
could have changed.
14
So all of that is a factor in the waiver argument and
15
the Court said on Thursday that it was out there already, so,
16
you know, --
17
THE COURT:
The fact that Mark Karpeles exists as a
18
potential individual as to whom there is some evidence that
19
people can draw inferences from, that would not be gone from
20
the case.
21
lots of evidence in terms of questions that you asked that was
22
perfectly appropriate in that regard.
23
Even with the government's suggestions, there is
MR. DRATEL:
Yes.
And I think all appropriate in the
24
context of -- not only in the context of alternative suspect,
25
but also in the context of the conduct of the investigation,

(212) 805-0300
644
F1kgulb3
Trial
because at the end of the day, we're going to have a comparison
with the investigation of Mr. Ulbricht and the conclusions that
were drawn and the investigations of at least two other people
and the conclusion that were drawn, and at the end of the day,
the only thing that's going to be a factor for the government
is something that no one can trust.
defense, and that's part of what these questions are about.
8
9
10
That's part of the whole
And it's perfectly appropriate to ask an agent and a

law enforcement officer about the conduct of his investigation
and how it proceeded and even --
11
THE COURT:
12
MR. DRATEL:
I don't want to reargue the evidence.

I know, I'm just saying, the notion that
13
now that there's no waiver when these things come in and is
14
just -- I mean, there has to be some notion of waiver in the
15
context of a trial in the sense of what it means to have a
16
contemporaneous objection and what it means not to have a
17
contemporaneous objection.
18
THE COURT:
19
MR. TURNER:
Mr. Turner.
Your Honor, the trial has gone fast.
20
wish you had all the law at your fingertips.
21
was inclined to think a lot of the testimony was admissible,
22
which after further review is now clearly inadmissible.
You
23
I think the Court
It's not too late for the defendant in that we're not
24
past cross.
We're still in the middle of cross.
25
defense has further inquiry that's admissible that's proper

(212) 805-0300
If the
645
F1kgulb3
Trial
about Mr. Karpeles, the defense can still pursue that, so
there's no prejudice to striking the prior testimony.
And the problem with leaving it in is there's very
clear circuit law that if hearsay like that comes in, the
curative admissibility doctrine applies and the government can
get equivalent hearsay in on redirect.
certainly would inquire of Special Agent Der-Yeghiayan in the
same fashion that the defense inquired on cross about all the
reasons that he now believes the defendant is guilty, and that
So the government
10
would certainly be appropriate.
11
Honor wanted to avoid by striking the testimony that's
12
objectionable that came in on Thursday.
13
THE COURT:
14
MR. DRATEL:
15
THE COURT:
16
MR. DRATEL:
And I think that was what your
So here is what we're going to do -Just one other thing.

Yes.
They knew full well what was in the 3500.
17
They cannot -- it cannot be that this was not on the radar for
18
them, then to sit by and let it all come in and then completely
19
eviscerate the defense after the fact is unfair, and that's a
20
waiver.
21
They knew better than anyone what was in the context
22
of my questions and what was in the context of Agent
23
Der-Yeghiayan's answers.
24
THE COURT:
25
MR. TURNER:
Mr. Turner.
I would say never in a million years

(212) 805-0300
646
F1kgulb3
Trial
would I have imagined that the defense would be trying to
allege that Mark Karpeles framed Dread Pirate Roberts.
think that was clear from the opening and that was not apparent
to the government until the questioning came in that way.
the government I don't think was put on notice by the opening
alone.
THE COURT:
I don't
So
My basis for my ruling is not that the
government should not have anticipated; that they may well have
anticipated it.
10
11
They should have objected, but they didn't.
We are now where we are.

We have had an objection that we have now talked about
12
extensively, and I will strike the testimony that is indicated
13
in the government's email to the Court, but not right now.
14
say that to you folks so that you can plan the remainder of
15
your cross and the government can plan its redirect as
16
appropriate.
17
I do not, however, plan to point the jury to the
18
specific Q and A's that I'm striking, unless you folks make
19
arguments that that's what I should do.
20
My intent, which I intend to do not right now, is to
21
give the jury a general instruction about suspicions and
22
conclusions that the agent reached are struck from the record
23
and then to provide clear indication by line to the court
24
reporter and to everyone here as to what is struck from the
25
record, but I don't think it stands in anyone's interest to

(212) 805-0300
647
F1kgulb3
Trial
have it be put on to the screen in terms of exactly what's
struck from the record.
giving more weight to it all at the same time.
actually has issues where it compounds the problem.
That seems to indicate taking away and

So I think it
But we can deal with that, the method, at another
time.
but in terms of being able to understand what to proceed with
right now, people should proceed with that view and to
construct the remainder of your cross.
10
And when I say another time, it won't be a long time,
11
If it goes on longer than you were anticipating,

Mr. Dratel, as a result, then I understand.
12
MR. DRATEL:
I don't know that I'm prepared to do it
13
for this reason:
14
factual answers and factual questions that the government has
15
included that should not be stricken under any circumstances.
16
First of all, there are facts here and
THE COURT:
I have reviewed them and I do believe that
17
what they indicated they would strike is consistent with my
18
ruling.
19
you've got the same shaded portions that I have --
There are pieces that are around it, and I assume
20
MR. DRATEL:
21
THE COURT:
Yes.
-- that are not struck and appropriately
22
so, and that would remain in terms of MtGox and Mark Karpeles.
23
I mean, he's not eliminated from the record.
24
certainly be able to argue whatever inferences you think you
25
can argue.
And you'll

(212) 805-0300
648
F1kgulb3
1
Trial
MR. DRATEL:
But there are other aspects of this that
are simply not -- that are factual, such as citizenship, such
as the part on page 506 and 507, which is about the conduct of
the investigation.
THE COURT:
It has nothing to do with -I believe the government has, consistent
with my lengthy ruling this morning, cabined the material
appropriately.
A's again, but you should proceed right now as if those pieces
are going to be struck from the record.
10
So I'll look at each of the individual Q and
MR. DRATEL:
I'm not sure I can proceed on this level
11
because now I have to go back and reconstruct all this material
12
that was unobjected to.
13
the cross that were already finished and done and then
14
reconstruct it.
15
I'd like a break until tomorrow.
16
I have to go back and look at parts of
I can go on with my cross right now, but then
THE COURT:
No.
I'm done with this issue.
If the
17
government had objected timely at the first Q and A, we
18
wouldn't be having this issue right now because it would have
19
been highlighted on the basis of suspicion, conjecture and
20
belief right then as opposed to going on.
21
MR. DRATEL:
And I would have rephrased the question.
22
THE COURT:
I'm saying go back and you can rephrase at
23
24
25
the questions right now.

MR. DRATEL:
But I need time to look at this.
seven or eight different pieces.

(212) 805-0300
This is
649
F1kgulb3
1
Trial
THE COURT:
We have been dealing with the possibility
that this very information could be struck since Thursday
night.
4
5
6
MR. DRATEL:
No.
They didn't identify this until 20
minutes ago.
THE COURT:
No.
It was obvious to me and it should
have been obvious to you folks that when we were dealing with
an objection about a type of testimony, that one potential
result, particularly in light of the government's letter when
10
they made an application to strike, is that certain things
11
would be struck.
12
The only question was what.
And therefore, this should not be a big shock in terms
13
of what's being struck.
14
like it or agree with it, but it's how we're going to proceed.
15
MR. DRATEL:
I'm not suggesting that you should
I want the equivalent so that -- I just
16
want it to be equivalent, that's all, so that they can sit on
17
their hands after providing all the 3500 material knowing
18
exactly where the examination is going, they don't have to do
19
that and now on the fly I have to do this.
20
that's equivalent, your Honor.
21
22
THE COURT:
I don't think
I'm sorry.
I think we have the way we're going to
proceed in mind.
23
Do we have a full jury?
24
THE DEPUTY CLERK:
25
THE COURT:
We do.
Let's bring out the jury.
Let's get

(212) 805-0300
650
F1kgulb3
Trial
Mr. Der-Yeghiayan back in the courtroom.
can you folks get him.
Mr. Der-Yeghiayan,
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(212) 805-0300
651
F1kgulb3
Trial
(In open court; jury present)
THE COURT:
When you get to your seat, let's all be
seated.
MR. DRATEL:
CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY MR. DRATEL:
Q.
Good afternoon, Agent Der-Yeghiayan.
A.
Good afternoon.
10
Q.
Going back to Mark Karpeles, he had -- he had an associate
11
named Ashley Barr, correct?
12
MR. TURNER:
13
THE COURT:
If he knows.
14
A.
I believe he had an employee named Ashley Barr.
15
Q.
His right-hand man essentially?
16
17
18
MR. TURNER:
A.
The same objection.
That is what I believed in 2012, yes.

THE COURT:
What I want you to do is try to, if you're
19
going to go into conclusions or beliefs, to stay away from
20
those to the extent that you're conjecturing.
21
If you've learned information during the course of
22
your investigation that is of the type you would rely upon,
23
then you may testify to that.
24
THE WITNESS:
25
THE COURT:
Okay.
So if you know it, you know it; but if you

(212) 805-0300
652
F1kgulb3
don't know it, you're conjecturing.
right?
THE WITNESS:
And let us know that, all
Okay.
Q.
So it's based upon your investigation, correct?
A.
Yeah, based upon my investigation, I saw that there was a
later on falling out between them, that they weren't as close
as I originally thought they were.
Q.
right-hand man to Mr. Karpeles, right?
But initially, your investigation established that he was a
10
MR. TURNER:
11
THE COURT:
Objection, your Honor.

Sustained.
12
Q.
On the type of information that you would rely on in your
13
investigation, that's the type of information you had
14
establishing that he was Karpeles' right-hand man, correct?
15
MR. TURNER:
16
THE COURT:
17
Let me ask it this way:
18
Do you have any independent information that this
Sustained.
19
person, Barr, is a right hand or close associate of
20
Mr. Karpeles?
21
THE WITNESS:
22
THE COURT:
23
I don't.
All right.
I take it you never spoke to
this associate?
24
THE WITNESS:
25
THE COURT:
I never did, no.

All right.
Move on.

(212) 805-0300
653
F1kgulb3
1
Q.
Mr. Barr worked for Mr. Karpeles, right?
2
3
MR. TURNER:
Q.
Based on your investigation --
4
5
THE COURT:
Here's what we're not going to do.
What
we're not going to do is -- he's not going to speculate.
MR. DRATEL:
I'm not asking him to speculate.
THE COURT:
If you know, then you may testify.
Otherwise, just tell us you don't know.
A.
He did work for him.
10
Q.
And during the time period that we're talking about, right,
11
2011, summer of 2012, right?
12
A.
Around the time period, yes.
13
Q.
And Mr. Barr is a Canadian citizen, correct?
14
A.
Yes, he is.
15
Q.
And has a degree in computer science, correct?
16
MR. TURNER:
17
THE COURT:
If he knows he's been -- he seems to have
18
knowledge from some basis.
19
A.
From what I found on the open Internet, yes, he does.
20
MR. TURNER:
Objection; hearsay.
21
THE COURT:
22
If you learned something only by virtue of something
That answer is struck.
23
that's unsubstantiated on the Internet, then we need to know
24
that.
25
reliable, then that would be helpful.
If it's something that you're basing on something that's

(212) 805-0300
654
F1kgulb3
1
Why don't you build a foundation as to what the source
of his knowledge is and then we can proceed.
Q.
education?
A.
It came from an Internet page.
Q.
Was it his LinkedIn page?
7
8
What's the source of your knowledge about Mr. Barr's
MR. TURNER:
A.
I believe it might have been his LinkedIn page.
MR. TURNER:
10
THE COURT:
11
Objection; hearsay.
Objection; hearsay.
I'm allowing him to at least figure out
whether or not he's got any information.
12
And it says you've got it from a LinkedIn page, right?
13
THE WITNESS:
I believe it might have been.
14
really recall if there was something that helped me.
15
Q.
You looked at his LinkedIn page, right?
16
A.
I did, yes.
17
Q.
And he was also an expert in Linux, correct?
18
MR. TURNER:
19
THE COURT:
Sustained.
20
MR. TURNER:
Hearsay.
21
22
Q.
Objection.
Based on your investigation -THE COURT:
No, you can't get in the truth of what his
23
experience is through this witness.
24
we'll deal with it.
25
I don't
Let's have a side bar and
I apologize, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.

(212) 805-0300
655
F1kgulb3
really do.
complicated things.
raising these, and I just need to make sure that we proceed
carefully, all right, but I do apologize.
These are complicated issues.
Trials are
Each side is doing the right thing by
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(212) 805-0300
656
F1kgulb3
(At the side bar)
THE COURT:
I don't want to revisit everything we've
been through.
rulings and so I understand that.
is, you can make a proffer during a break or in a letter as to
what you would ask that you understand I'm precluding you from
asking so I'll confirm it, so you've got it preserved for
appellate purposes.
I know that the defense does not agree with my

What I would like you to do
But right now, my ruling is you can't use this witness
10
about what he's read on the open Internet to confirm that
11
certain kinds of expertise were or were not within the -- were
12
not held by Mr. Barr or Mr. Karpeles.
13
This witness is reviewing things on LinkedIn and he
14
can't then say he was an expert in Linux.
15
you know, the most that he can do, and you'd never be able to
16
rely upon it, to state he was an expert --
17
MR. DRATEL:
He can't.
He can,
I'm fine with the notion that everything
18
that's on the Internet is unreliable and that goes for
19
everyone, and that goes for all their evidence, too.
20
going to move to strike all of their evidence because it's all
21
Internet.
22
THE COURT:
And I'm
What you need to do is you need to go
23
back, because there's a difference between something appearing
24
on an Internet where we've gone through each of the evidentiary
25
issues, for instance, a page that says brown heroin and

(212) 805-0300
657
F1kgulb3
something where we're extrapolating from a LinkedIn page which,
by the way, has got all kinds of Vayner issues, that he is in
fact an expert in Linux.
whether he put that there or somebody else put that there, he
being Mr. Barr.
I have no idea who put that there,
MR. DRATEL:
was about the website itself.
had not been established.
let it in.
10
THE COURT:
It's not a Vayner issue because Vayner

The Russian version of Facebook
If it was Facebook, they would have
I don't know enough about LinkedIn.
I'm
11
not a LinkedIn user myself, so as to the indicia of reliability
12
of who can edit, I don't know whether or not this person is or
13
is not an expert in Linux.
14
and find out what his expertise is.
15
fellow lives.
16
17
MR. DRATEL:
He's Canadian.
You can call Barr
I don't know where this
I have no subpoena power
over him.
18
19
I have no idea.
THE COURT:
I don't know where he's located.
If he's
in New York City, he can be down the street for all I know.
20
MR. DRATEL:
21
THE COURT:
He's in Japan.
My point is, you can't get that kind of
22
thing in.
What other things are we likely to confront so we
23
don't have back and forth that gets heated in front of a jury?
24
MR. DRATEL:
Talking about Karpeles' credentials?
25
THE COURT:
You can get in that there may have been

(212) 805-0300
658
F1kgulb3
information that he saw that indicated certain things, but I
will give an instruction that we have no idea that it's true
and you can't then --
MR. DRATEL:
THE COURT:
We don't know what the basis is.

Hold on.
Let me say I want to make sure
that you understand what you can't do is get from this witness
Karpeles was an expert in X, Y or Z and then cite that in your
closing that this fellow was an expert in X, Y or Z.
idea whether this stuff accurate or not on the Internet.
10
MR. DRATEL:
I have no
Let's find out from him where he got it
11
from because it may be that he didn't get it from the LinkedIn
12
page.
13
Maybe he did other research.

THE COURT:
If he did, if you can build a foundation,
14
then you can build a foundation.
15
university, for instance, and found out from the University of
16
Ottowa that this person had received a degree in computer
17
science, that's a different kettle of fish than looking on the
18
Internet and surmising or a news article.
19
MR. DRATEL:
20
THE COURT:
21
If he checked in with a
All right.
Build a foundation.
22
23
24
25
(212) 805-0300
659
F1kgulb3
1
BY MR. DRATEL:
Q.
correct?
A.
Now, you did research on certain software platforms,
Can you be more specific?
MR. TURNER:
Objection; form.
THE COURT:
You may answer.
He can answer that question.
A.
I'm sorry.
10
Q.
You did research on certain software platforms, correct?
11
A.
In what context?
12
Q.
Well, MediaWiki, right, M-E-D-I-A-W-I-K-I, correct?
13
A.
I did look into that; yes.
14
Q.
And you found that there were similarities between Silk
15
Road market and a forum associated with Mark Karpeles, correct?
16
A.
It was --
17
18
Can you --
MR. TURNER:
Objection; foundation on the research
issue.
19
THE COURT:
20
Did you look at the MediaWiki software platform?
21
THE WITNESS:
22
25
I looked at its website from MediaWiki,
yes.
23
24
There is a way of getting at this.
THE COURT:
Did you look at the platform it was built
on?
THE WITNESS:
I didn't really go too deep into the

(212) 805-0300
660
F1kgulb3
1
software.
2
3
THE COURT:
Whether you went too deep or at a surface
level, did you look at it at all?
THE WITNESS:
I had looked at particular websites that
were running MediaWiki; yes.
THE COURT:
All right.
And did you look at any
websites that were run by Mark Karpeles?
THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
Yes, I did.
Did the websites that were run by Mark
10
Karpeles utilize any of the same features which you had seen
11
from MediaWiki?
12
THE WITNESS:
I saw the same features.
I believe it
13
was the same as the Silk Road Wiki had the same features as a
14
website that Mark Karpeles was hosting that had MediaWiki, too.
15
16
THE COURT:
certain features on MediaWiki as you did with the Silk Road?
17
18
So you perceived, by looking at it,
THE WITNESS:
It was the same version number, I
believe.
19
THE COURT:
20
THE WITNESS:
21
THE COURT:
The same version number?

Yes.
You may proceed.
22
Q.
That was 1.17, right?
23
A.
I believe that was it; yes.
24
Q.
In fact, it wasn't the latest version at the time?
25
an older version, correct?

(212) 805-0300
It was
661
F1kgulb3
MR. TURNER:
THE COURT:
Objection; time frame.

Overruled.
Q.
At the time you were looking in 2012, 2013?
A.
It was an older version when I did observe it; yes.
Q.
Right.
were operating on the same MediaWiki version that had since
been updated, right?
A.
That's correct.
Q.
And based on your research, that platform is not used by a
So both the Karpeles site and silkroadmarket.org
10
lot of forum administrators, correct?
11
A.
12
opensource that was used.
13
was used in other websites, but --
14
Q.
15
administrators?
I did research.
And I think it was something that was just
But didn't you say that it was not widely used by forum
16
MR. TURNER:
17
THE COURT:
18
You may answer.
19
A.
20
that.
21
Q.
22
23
Objection; hearsay.
I will allow it.
It was something that came from my source that told me
But you wrote that, did you not?

MR. TURNER:
Q.
I couldn't say exactly how much it
Objection.
Didn't you write that?
24
THE COURT:
Let me ask it this way:
25
Did you look at a number of websites that were using

(212) 805-0300
662
F1kgulb3
1
the same platform?
THE WITNESS:
I didn't -- it was information that was
shared to me by my source at the time that instructed me on
that.
was.
I wasn't familiar as a web administrator as the source
THE COURT:
I see, but you did personally look at
MediaWiki and look at the Silk Road forum and saw some overlap
in the platforms?
THE WITNESS:
10
myself, yes, I did.
11
THE COURT:
I saw it was the same version number
The other information you have about the
12
extent to which that same version number was being used by
13
other websites or not, that was something that you personally
14
did not perceive?
15
THE WITNESS:
That I did not perceive, no.
16
THE COURT:
17
All right, so I think we'll move on.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(212) 805-0300
663
F1kdulb4
1
THE COURT:
All right.
So I think that you can go on.
BY MR. DRATEL:
Q.
and experience, this platform is not widely used by forum
administrators?"
A.
It was something through the course that I learned --
Q.
Did you not swear to that?
not swear under oath in an affidavit that, based on your
training and experience, the Wiki 1.17, the MediaWiki 1.17
Did you swear in an affidavit that "Based on my training
That is the question.
Did you
10
version is not commonly used by forum administrators?
11
A.
That was in my affidavit.
12
Q.
Also, you found that the forum, and a company controlled by
13
Mr. Karpeles, also ran something called simple machine -- I'm
14
sorry, the Silk Road forum, and something called -- and Mutum
15
Sigillum, Mr. Karpeles' company, ran something called Simple
16
Machines, right, the software?
17
A.
18
both ran on Simple Machines forum software.
19
Q.
And that wasn't common either?
20
A.
That was one that I wasn't familiar with, no.
21
Q.
Now, you investigated Mr. Karpeles' background, correct?
22
A.
I did.
23
Q.
And his professional background, right?
24
A.
I did.
25
Q.
And what kind of sources did you use?
Yes, I swore to that.
It was the bitcoin talk forums and the Silk Road forums

(212) 805-0300
664
F1kdulb4
A.
Things that are open source information that I could --
that I could research as well as any other -- any other sources
I could talk to.
Q.
respect to Mr. Karpeles' expertise in Linux, L-i-n-u-x,
software --
And can you tell us about the sources that you used with
7
8
MR. TURNER:
Q.
Objection.
-- or Linux programs?
THE COURT:
He can give us the sources that he used.
10
Let me ask it this way.
11
Mr. Karpeles' background, did you identify information which
12
referred to any experience he had in different kinds of
13
programming languages?
14
15
THE WITNESS:
In the course of investigating
I did observe some of the open source in
LinkedIn pages and such that he did express --
16
MR. TURNER:
17
THE COURT:
Objection.
All right.
Did you do anything to
18
yourself verify the truth of whatever was in those LinkedIn
19
pages?
20
21
22
THE WITNESS:
No.
I wasn't able to cross-reference
that.
THE COURT:
All right.
But I take it that you did
23
identify certain sources which indicated to you at least that
24
the words on the page seem to suggest that there was Linux
25
expertise?
(212) 805-0300
665
F1kdulb4
THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
There was.
And you yourself didn't verify whether or
not a degree had been obtained from a particular university;
you just read them on the page?
THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
That is correct.
All right.
Well, then, ladies and
gentlemen, the witness is competent to testify about what he
saw, that he saw a variety of sources that indicates that there
was Linux expertise, but you should understand that he did not
10
verify.
So, therefore, it is not for the truth of that; it is
11
for the fact that he saw that information.
12
BY MR. DRATEL:
13
Q.
14
programming language, correct?
15
MR. TURNER:
16
THE COURT:
All right?
And the same thing with respect to PHP, which is a
I object.
I am going to allow him to proceed in a
17
similar manner that the Court just did to lay a particular
18
foundation, and if he did not verify whether or not the
19
expertise came from a university, we will figure that out, or
20
from another credentialing organization.
21
You may answer.
22
THE WITNESS:
23
I saw the Linux language there.
24
BY MR. DRATEL:
25
Q.
Yes, I did.
It was in the same way that
By the way, Linux is the operational system for Silk Road,

(212) 805-0300
666
F1kdulb4
right, in many ways?
A.
I believe that and Ubuntu, which it runs.
Q.
And PHP?
A.
PHP is a different website programming language.
Q.
And the information that you saw also was that Mr. Karpeles
had worked professionally in both systems, PHP and Linux,
right?
A.
Based on the rsum that I saw, yes.
Q.
Now, as part of your investigation you looked into IP
10
addresses associated with Mr. Karpeles, correct?
11
A.
That's correct.
12
Q.
And you came up with about five pages worth, lists of IP
13
addresses, right?
14
A.
That is correct.
15
Q.
That's pretty active Internet presence, wouldn't you say?
16
A.
That is a lot of IP addresses, yes.
17
Q.
And you also found out -- and this is directly from hosting
18
companies, right, you found out; so you verified this, these IP
19
addresses, right?
20
A.
Yes.
Through subpoenas, yes.
21
Q.
Yes.
Also you verified, through the subpoenas, that
22
Mr. Karpeles was actively using the support for a software
23
called MYSQL, correct?
24
25
MR. TURNER:
Q.
Objection.
MySQL.
(212) 805-0300
667
F1kdulb4
MR. TURNER:
THE COURT:
Objection.
Form.
I will allow it.
A.
I believe he was using MySQL yes.
Q.
Do you need to be sure?
A.
It's hand in hand with PHP so I'm assuming, yes, he did.
THE COURT:
A.
certainly look at it.
Q.
Don't assume.
If you have something I could reference, yes, I will
Sure.
10
(Pause)
11
MR. DRATEL:
3505-3767.
12
Q.
If you just look at that first paragraph (handing).
13
A.
Sure.
14
(Pause)
15
OK.
16
Q.
17
had a port open for M-y-S-Q-L, MySQL?
18
A.
That is correct.
19
Q.
That's also something that is used in Silk Road, right?
20
A.
I believe so, yes.
21
Q.
Silk Road relied on a highly complex system for processing
22
bitcoins, right?
23
24
25
And so you got confirmation through the subpoenas that he
MR. TURNER:
Q.
Objection.
Foundation.
Based on your investigation?

MR. TURNER:
The same objection.

(212) 805-0300
668
F1kdulb4
THE COURT:
I will allow it.
Do you want to rephrase it?
MR. DRATEL:
THE COURT:
No.
If the Court will allow it.
I will allow it.
A.
I'm sorry.
Could you repeat, please.
Q.
Sure.
highly complex system for processing bitcoins, correct?
A.
Yes, it did.
Q.
Now, in addition to some of the other subpoenas we've
Based on your investigation, Silk Road relied on a
10
talked about, you also subpoenaed a service in Germany called G
11
small M and small B H -- I'm sorry, BSB Service.
12
small M small B capital H, right?
13
for corporation, GmbH.
14
Capital G
That is the German suffix
But you subpoenaed that with respect to Mr. Karpeles
15
as well, right?
16
A.
I believe it is the 1API, yes.
17
Q.
Now, in all of those returns on the subpoenas that you got
18
from that stuff, the IP addresses, was there anything about
19
Mr. Ulbricht in any of that?
20
A.
There was not.
21
Q.
Now, even after Mr. Ulbricht was arrested, you continued
22
your investigation of Mr. Karpeles, correct?
23
A.
I wanted to see if there was any other ties to him, yes.
24
Q.
And were there any inferences in the notes on
25
Mr. Ulbricht's computer with respect to Mr. Karpeles'

(212) 805-0300
669
F1kdulb4
1
involvement and associations with Silk Road?
MR. TURNER:
THE COURT:
Objection.
Form.
Sustained.
Q.
Did you review notes from Mr. Ulbricht's computer?
A.
I did.
Q.
Did you find any inferences of Mr. Karpeles' involvement
and association with Silk Road?
MR. TURNER:
Objection.
Form.
Foundation.
THE COURT:
10
MR. DRATEL:
11
THE COURT:
12
were there any differences.
13
The jury is the body that will draw inferences.
14
it is.
15
BY MR. DRATEL:
16
Q.
Hearsay.
Sustained.
Foundation is -No, you can do it, but you can't ask him
You can show him different things.
That's the way
17
Did you find inferences -THE COURT:
I'm not going to allow finding inferences.
18
If you want to ask him about certain facts he saw on the
19
website, you can.
20
MR. DRATEL:
Could we have a sidebar, your Honor?
21
THE COURT:
I am not going to do a sidebar on this
22
one.
23
BY MR. DRATEL:
24
Q.
25
withdrawn.
When you reviewed Mr. Ulbricht's notes, or what were on --

(212) 805-0300
670
F1kdulb4
1
You reviewed what was on Mr. Ulbricht's laptop,
correct?
A.
I did.
Q.
And part of that was you were looking for things about
Mr. Karpeles, correct?
A.
I was looking for any associations with Mr. Karpeles, yes.
Q.
Did you find any?
A.
There was his name mentioned on some text documents, yes.
Q.
Now, the bitcoin forum that we are talking about, shortly
10
after Mr. Ulbricht was arrested there was a report that you
11
received -- and this is not for the truth, this is for the
12
report -- that it had been hacked, correct?
13
A.
I believe so, yes.
14
MR. TURNER:
15
THE COURT:
16
Hearsay.
Well, it is not for the truth.
It is just
for the fact that the report indicated that.
17
18
Objection.
You don't know whether or not it was in fact hacked,

do you?
19
THE WITNESS:
20
THE COURT:
I do not, no.
You can go ahead and continue.
21
BY MR. DRATEL:
22
Q.
23
bitcointalk.org that might have some integrity, right, because
24
that would eliminate that prospect because it would have been
25
hacked, right?
And that would eliminate the ability to find information on

(212) 805-0300
671
F1kdulb4
MR. TURNER:
THE COURT:
Q.
Objection.
It calls for speculation.
Sustained.
If it had been hacked.

THE COURT:
No.
He is not an expert witness to talk
about the evidence of hacking.
Q.
You never saw Mr. Karpeles' laptop, correct?
A.
No, I've never seen his laptop or computers.
Q.
Mr. Karpeles also controls a lot of websites, correct?
A.
He was a hosting provider, yes.
10
Q.
And part of the your investigation in terms of trying to
11
keep the integrity of your investigation intact, you advised
12
other agents and other agencies not to go on Karpeles' websites
13
because he tracked them, correct?
14
MR. TURNER:
15
THE COURT:
16
(Pause)
17
There is a form issue with the word "integrity."
18
I will allow it.
MR. DRATEL:
Why
We are beyond that.
It is the next
question which is about --
21
22
Relevance and foundation.
don't you re-ask the question in a form that I will allow.
19
20
Objection.
THE COURT:
No.
The question you had was in part of
your investigation --
23
MR. DRATEL:
I'm sorry.
24
Q.
So in part of your investigation, in order to keep it
25
confidential, to keep targets from being advised of the fact

(212) 805-0300
672
F1kdulb4
that they were under investigation, you strongly advised people
in the government -- your colleagues, other agencies -- not to
go on Karpeles' website because you were afraid that he would
be able to see that, had they done so, they would be advised of
the investigation, right?
6
7
MR. TURNER:
Relevance and foundation as
to the latter part of the question.
8
9
Objection.
THE COURT:
I will sustain the objection, but there is
a form of it that you can ask but you are adding in a lot of
10
other stuff.
11
Q.
12
as well as other agencies, not to go to Karpeles' websites and
13
not to visit them?
14
A.
15
visit those websites.
16
Q.
17
investigation confidential, right?
18
A.
It's what we do in investigations, yes.
19
Q.
You were afraid that if someone went on one of those sites,
20
it might give Karpeles notice that the government was looking
21
at his sites?
22
A.
That is why, yes.
23
Q.
You are also familiar with someone named Anand Athavale.
24
don't know if I am pronouncing it correctly, but A-n-a-n-d is
25
the first name, last name A-t-h-a-v-a-l-e.
Did you advise your colleagues in HSI around the country,
The websites that I listed in my report, I did say do not

I said that, yes.
And the reason was because you wanted to keep the

(212) 805-0300
673
F1kdulb4
A.
I am.
Q.
And he is a Canadian?
A.
He is a Canadian citizen, yes.
Q.
He lives in Vancouver, or lived in Vancouver during 2012
and 2013?
MR. DRATEL:
THE COURT:
Objection.
Why don't you build a foundation for that
so we'll see what it is based on.
Q.
10
Did you find out that he lived in Vancouver during that
period of time?
11
MR. TURNER:
12
Q.
13
there?
Objection.
MR. TURNER:
15
THE COURT:
Objection.
guy was from?

THE WITNESS:
18
THE COURT:
19
Did you look at a passport?
I did.
What kinds of information did you look at?
20
THE WITNESS:
21
THE COURT:
22
or the Canadian counterpart?
24
25
Foundation.
Did you look to try to find out where this
17
23
Foundation.
Did you do an investigation to find out that he lived
14
16
Foundation.
I believe it is from travel records.

And travel records from Homeland Security
THE WITNESS:
trying to recall.
It is from Homeland Security.
I am
THE COURT:
I'm sorry.
These are records maintained by the

(212) 805-0300
674
F1kdulb4
customs folks when people would enter or exit the national
boundaries?
THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
That is correct.
And they maintain records as part of that
recordkeeping function as to the citizenship reported of the
entrant or exiter?
THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
They do.
All right.
And what did that indicate to
you for this individual?
10
THE WITNESS:
He was crossing over around Vancouver.
11
Actually, initially I think it was Toronto and then later on it
12
was north of Vancouver.
13
THE COURT:
14
declared citizenship status?
15
THE WITNESS:
Did it give any indication as to his
We -- throughout the process of the
16
investigation, later on we did confirm through Canadian customs
17
that he was a Canadian citizen, and we did get records from the
18
RCMP.
19
THE COURT:
20
Mr. Dratel, you may proceed.
21
MR. DRATEL:
22
BY MR. DRATEL:
23
Q.
24
presence, correct?
25
A.
All right.
Thank you.
Now, you also did an investigation in terms of his Internet
I did.
(212) 805-0300
675
F1kdulb4
MR. TURNER:
THE COURT:
I was letting you go ahead.
Objection to form.
I will allow it.
MR. DRATEL:
There was an objection.
I was overruling the objection.
Q.
And the list of domain names that he owned was four pages
long, right?
A.
I believe so, yes.
Q.
And the list of his current known IP addresses was a half
page, right?
10
A.
From what I got back from the subpoenas, yes.
11
Q.
And he also is someone with computer proficiency based on
12
what you learned in your investigation, correct?
13
MR. TURNER:
Objection.
14
THE COURT:
15
you approached the other one?
16
Q.
17
Mr. Athavale and who he was and what he -- and, you know, his
18
Internet presence and his Internet -- and his computer
19
proficiency?
20
A.
21
would describe his credentials.
Why don't you approach it the same way as
What were the sources of your information with respect to
I believe he had also a LinkedIn page, as well, where he
22
MR. TURNER:
23
THE COURT:
24
Let me ask it this way.
25
Foundation.
Objection.
Hearsay.
Sustained.
Did you look at a LinkedIn
page that appeared to be associated with this fellow Athavale?

(212) 805-0300
676
F1kdulb4
THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
I believe so, yes.

Did you investigate whether he himself put
the information on the page or whether somebody else put the
information on the page?
THE WITNESS:
I wasn't able to tell if he put it on
himself but I assume so, yes.
THE COURT:
But you saw a page that appeared to be
associated with this individual, and based on that page you saw
information that indicated he had some computer experience?
10
THE WITNESS:
11
THE COURT:
12
Yes.
And you didn't separately verify that, is
that right?
13
THE WITNESS:
14
THE COURT:
No, I did not.

But you saw that there was a LinkedIn page
15
which simply provided information indicating that he had
16
computer experience?
17
THE WITNESS:
18
THE COURT:
Yes.
All right.
So we don't know, ladies and
19
gentlemen, whether it was true or not.
20
a LinkedIn page that was in existence that indicated this
21
individual had some computer experience.
22
page was accurate or not or by this individual or somebody else
23
purporting to have that name is unknown.
24
You may proceed, Mr. Dratel.
25
MR. DRATEL:
We just know there was
Whether that LinkedIn

(212) 805-0300
677
F1kdulb4
BY MR. DRATEL:
Q.
like November 2012?
A.
Correct.
Q.
And, by the way, Vancouver is in the Pacific Time Zone,
right?
A.
Yes, it is.
Q.
And at some point have you reviewed any private messages on
the Silk Road service that existed -- on the Silk Road websites
And this, again, was in the latter part of 2012, correct,
10
or servers or anything on Silk Road, have you reviewed any
11
private messages that had the name Anand Athavale in them?
12
MR. TURNER:
13
THE COURT:
14
MR. TURNER:
15
THE COURT:

Give me one more word.
403.
I will allow this question.
You may
16
answer.
17
A.
Looking for his name on the servers?
18
Q.
Have you seen any entries in the universe of Silk Road on
19
the servers that has his name?
20
A.
If there is something to help me recollect my memory?
21
Q.
Private messages.
22
MR. TURNER:
23
THE COURT:
24
MR. DRATEL:
25
THE COURT:
Someone named "deathfromabove"?

Sustained.
He wanted me to help him.
I know.
But you are connecting that, the

(212) 805-0300
678
F1kdulb4
two.
BY MR. DRATEL:
Q.
identification.
5
6
So you can build a foundation for it.
I show you what's marked as Defendant's E, for
MR. TURNER:
Is this being offered to refresh
recollection, your Honor?
MR. DRATEL:
Yes.
MR. TURNER:
Then I object to foundation.
MR. DRATEL:
He asked for me to show him something.
10
THE COURT:
I've got to see what it is first before I
11
figure out if there is a problem.
12
(Pause)
13
All right.
14
MR. TURNER:
15
THE COURT:
16
I will allow you to -Your Honor, can we have a sidebar?

No.
I didn't allow one for him.
take it step-by-step.
17
So ask your next question, Mr. Dratel.
18
MR. DRATEL:
19
Q.
THE COURT:
21
MR. DRATEL:
22
THE COURT:
23
MR. DRATEL:
25
I just ask you to look at that, read it to yourself.
20
24
I will
And who put the -Redactions?

Redactions?
We did, your Honor, for a reason that I
can explain later.

THE COURT:
All right.

(212) 805-0300
679
F1kdulb4
BY MR. DRATEL:
Q.
Have you seen that before?
A.
Not that I recall, no.
Q.
Now, with respect to Mr. Ulbricht, you subpoenaed the
entirety of his Facebook account, correct?
I'm sorry, withdrawn.
The government got a warrant for the entirety of
Mr. Ulbricht's Facebook account, right?
A.
I wasn't included on that, that I recall.
10
Q.
How about Google?
11
A.
I am aware of Google, yes.
12
Q.
PayPal you are aware of, right?
13
A.
I believe there was multiple subpoenas issued.
14
them was done through FBI and not through me.
15
Q.
16
the same kind of records that you looked at when you talked
17
about Mr. Athavale, right?
18
A.
I reviewed Mr. Ulbricht's travel records, yes.
19
Q.
And basically one trip per year, right?
20
A.
I believe that is accurate, yes.
21
Q.
One was to Costa Rica, correct?
22
A.
I believe so, yes.
23
Q.
And did you learn during the course of your investigation
24
that his parents have a business in Costa Rica?
25
You are aware of it, right?
A lot of
And you have also reviewed his travel history, right, from
MR. TURNER:
Objection.
Foundation.

(212) 805-0300
680
F1kdulb4
THE COURT:
I mean, did you ever receive information indicating
that one way or the other?
4
5
Well, I will allow it.
THE WITNESS:
I saw open source information off the
Internet that would indicate that, yes.
THE COURT:
Did you ever confirm it independently of
that open source information?
THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
No, I did not.

All right.
So you heard or saw
10
information from the Internet which is not separately
11
confirmed?
12
THE WITNESS:
13
THE COURT:
That is correct.
All right.
So, ladies and gentlemen,
14
whether or not the parents have a business in Costa Rica is not
15
yet in the record, but the witness saw information indicating
16
something to that effect but did not confirm it.
17
BY MR. DRATEL:
18
Q.
You got his Mt. Gox account records, right?
19
A.
Yes.
20
subpoena.
21
Q.
Weren't you given the account number by Karpeles' attorney?
22
A.
I was not --
23
24
25
The Mt. Gox records were also I believe through
MR. TURNER:
Q.
Objection.
The government?
THE COURT:
And if you have personal knowledge, then

(212) 805-0300
681
F1kdulb4
testify to it, but don't speculate if you weren't given a
number.
THE WITNESS:
MR. TURNER:
THE COURT:
personal knowledge.
7
8
It was given to the Baltimore office.

Objection.
Foundation.
That is struck since it is not your
Did you learn of that through a communication with

somebody, through an A.U.S.A. in Baltimore?
THE WITNESS:
10
THE COURT:
Through the U.S. attorneys.

The fact of it, that he received that
11
information, is OK, but you can't get the truth of the account
12
number if you are not going to connect the dots.
13
MR. DRATEL:
14
Q.
15
attorney?
I would move it under 807.
So you were told that by an assistant United States
16
MR. TURNER:
17
THE COURT:
18
Q.
19
correct?
Objection.
Hearsay.
Sustained.
And Karpeles was still under investigation at the time,
20
THE COURT:
21
Q.
22
right?
23
A.
24
service charges, yes.
25
Q.
Can we get the timeframe.
October 12, 2013, eleven days after Mr. Ulbricht's arrest,
We were still looking at him for money service business
Now, going back to Mr. Karpeles, you never saw his laptop,
(212) 805-0300
682
F1kdulb4
right?
A.
No, I have not.
Q.
You never saw his desk-top or any computer belonging to
him, correct?
A.
I have not.
Q.
You never saw his phone, his smart phone or any other
phone, right?
A.
No, I have not.
Q.
You never had access to any of the servers that he
10
maintains overseas, right?
11
A.
I have not.
12
Q.
With respect to Mr. Athavale, the same thing, right?
13
never saw his laptop?
14
A.
No, I did not.
15
Q.
His phone?
16
A.
No, I have not.
17
Q.
Any electronic device that he owns?
18
A.
Nothing belonging to him, no.
19
Q.
You have heard of someone named Richard Bates, correct?
20
A.
The name is familiar, yes.
21
Q.
Well, he is someone whose name came up just prior to
22
Mr. Ulbricht's arrest, correct?
23
MR. TURNER:
24
Q.
25
arrest, correct?
Objection.
Form.
Foundation.
You learned of his name just prior to Mr. Ulbricht's

(212) 805-0300
You
683
F1kdulb4
1
THE COURT:
A.
I'm sorry.
recollection.
my memory?
Q.
I will allow that.
I am having a hard time refreshing my

Do you have something that can help me recollect
Sure.
(Pause)
MR. TURNER:
Could I see the document?
MR. DRATEL:
Sure.
(Counsel conferred)
10
THE COURT:
11
MR. DRATEL:
Did I hear you say it was 2935 through 36?

Yes.
12
Q.
Just look at it right here.
13
A.
Sure.
14
(Pause)
15
OK.
16
Q.
So Richard Bates is someone whose name came up in your
17
investigation of Mr. Ulbricht, correct?
18
MR. TURNER:
19
THE COURT:
Objection.
Form.
I will allow it.
20
A.
This was something that was brought to my attention by
21
Special Agent Gary Alford.
22
investigation.
23
Q.
It wasn't actually part of my
It was basically about Bates' profile, right?
24
MR. TURNER:
25
THE COURT:
The same objection.
Hearsay.
I will allow it.

(212) 805-0300
684
F1kdulb4
A.
There was discussions that he had where he brought up a
possible lead in connections to Bates.
Q.
Mr. Ulbricht but also with DPR?
Right.
He had certain things in common not only with
MR. TURNER:
THE COURT:
Q.
Objection.
Again, hearsay.
Sustained.
Some of the things were about his political views, right?
MR. TURNER:
THE COURT:
10
Objection.
Sustained.
(Pause)
11
Q.
Did you look into Mr. Bates at all?
12
A.
No, I did not.
13
Q.
Now, before lunch we were talking about bitcoins and the
14
accounts that you had identified -- that Homeland Security had
15
identified as being part of Silk Road, do you remember?
16
A.
Yes.
17
Q.
So in August of 2012, you had identified several bitcoin
18
accounts associated with Silk Road that had the equivalent of
19
over -- talking about bitcoins in terms of value at that
20
time -- of over $5 million dollars, U.S. dollars, right?
21
A.
Yes.
22
Q.
And that that had gone up from May of that year, right?
23
May -- withdrawn.
24
25
In May of that year, there was only about $2 million
In
worth of bitcoins in the account, correct?

(212) 805-0300
685
F1kdulb4
MR. TURNER:
THE COURT:
Objection.
Lack of foundation.
Just so that I'm clear and so I understand
the question, do you mean the number of bitcoins changed or the
value of the bitcoins changed, or both?
MR. DRATEL:
I am going to get to that, your Honor.
Q.
monitoring of those wallets, those accounts, correct?
8
9
10
So this is based on your investigation, right, and your
MR. TURNER:
Objection.
The foundation, how these
wallets are associated with Silk Road.

THE COURT:
Well, in connection with your review of
11
the commissions that might be obtained through purchasing them
12
on Silk Road, did you look at any records?
13
THE WITNESS:
It was in connection with our purchases
14
we did and moving money in and out.
15
addresses that we identified in the course of the investigation
16
that we suspected were associated to Silk Road.
17
18
THE COURT:
And did you monitor the account
information for those addresses?
19
THE WITNESS:
20
THE COURT:
21
I did.
All right.
And during what period of time
are you talking about, Mr. Dratel?
22
MR. DRATEL:
23
is a series of dates in 2012.
24
THE COURT:
25
These were records or
Well, through the middle part of -- there
So did those numbers fluctuate -- in terms
of numbers of bitcoins fluctuate throughout 2012?

(212) 805-0300
686
F1kdulb4
1
2
THE WITNESS:
It increased steadily in that account up
to a certain period.
3
4
THE COURT:
All right.
OK.
Mr. Dratel, why don't you
pick it up from here.
MR. DRATEL:
Q.
account, correct?
So in July of 2012, there were about 500,000 bitcoins in an
MR. TURNER:
THE COURT:
10
MR. DRATEL:
Objection.
Form.
"An account."
I will allow it.

I mean, the account we are talking about.
11
If I have to repeat everything in every question, I will.
But
12
thank you, your Honor, for allowing me.
13
Q.
14
the account had 503,825 bitcoins in it, right?
15
A.
That sounds about correct, yes.
16
Q.
And the value of a bitcoin at that time was $7.10, correct?
17
A.
Sounds about accurate, yes.
18
Q.
So that would be about $3-and-a-half million in bitcoins?
19
5 times 7, add the zero --
20
A.
Carry.
21
Q.
I mean, you did the math at one point, right?
22
A.
I had a calculator, right, yes.
23
Q.
Now, so there is 500,000 bitcoins in the account, and there
24
were 144,000 bitcoins seized from Mr. Ulbricht's laptop at the
25
time of his arrest, right?
So in that account that you were monitoring, July 10, 2012,
Yes.

(212) 805-0300
687
F1kdulb4
A.
144,000 bitcoins, yes.
Q.
So there were 500,000 bitcoins in July of 2012 in that
account.
Now, that was 16 months before the arrest was made,
right, before the site was taken down, correct?
A.
That is correct.
Q.
So you had the entirety of those 15/16 months of how many
bitcoins Silk Road would collect -- withdrawn.
Silk Road continued to make sales, collect commissions
10
for those additional 16 months, correct?
11
A.
They did.
12
Q.
And those would be reflected in bitcoins, right?
13
A.
It would.
14
Q.
And also not $7 per bitcoin but by October 1st of 2013,
15
bitcoin was at $100 per bitcoin, right?
16
A.
That is correct.
17
Q.
So that's fourteen times, right, the value?
18
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
So if it was 3.5 million in July of 2012, just those
20
500,000 bitcoins -- not even including the other 16 months --
21
just that amount of bitcoins, it would be worth 70 million,
22
right -- I'm sorry, 50 million?
23
A.
That sounds about right, yes.
24
Q.
14 times three-and-a-half.
25
Now, if someone had cashed out those 500,000 bitcoins

(212) 805-0300
688
F1kdulb4
when bitcoins were at $250 per bitcoin, which occurred in the
spring of 2013, right?
MR. TURNER:
Objection.
MR. DRATEL:
I haven't finished the question.
THE COURT:
it.
Form.
Foundation.
I think it is the hypothetical nature of
Why don't you stick to what happened in this account?
MR. DRATEL:
All right.
Q.
Bitcoin, during the period that we were talking about
before, October 1st, 2013, bitcoin peaked in the spring of
10
2013, correct?
11
A.
Yeah, around April it did.
12
Q.
To 250?
13
A.
Yes.
14
Q.
$250 per bitcoin?
15
A.
$250 a bitcoin.
16
Q.
So that would make that 50 million one-and-a-half times
17
more, right?
18
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
125 million?
20
A.
If it -- yeah, if the volume stayed the same in bitcoins in
21
the accounts, yes.
22
Q.
23
right, in the course of its -- from the government's
24
investigation, Silk Road made $1.2 billion in sales, right?
25
Now, Silk Road made an estimate of $1.2 billion in sales,
MR. TURNER:
Objection.
Foundation.

(212) 805-0300
689
F1kdulb4
1
Q.
It is in the complaint, right?
MR. TURNER:
THE COURT:
Do you know if Silk Road is alleged to have -- strike
Do you know if bitcoin --
strike that.
that.
6
7
Objection.
Do you know the volume of sales Silk Road had during

the period of time that spans this investigation?
THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
Only what was shared with me by the FBI.

Did you yourself look at any documents
10
relating to the Silk Road website that indicated to you the
11
volume of sales?
12
THE WITNESS:
There wasn't anything directly on the
13
website that would tell you what they -- what the volume was,
14
but there was what came out of the FBI investigation on the
15
server, that they came to that figure for the complaint.
16
THE COURT:
Why don't you try it in a different way?
17
MR. DRATEL:
I also move it under 801 as a -- well,
18
not front of the jury.
19
THE COURT:
We'll pick it up at our break.
20
BY MR. DRATEL:
21
Q.
22
FBI concluded that Silk Road had made $1.2 billion in sales
23
over the course of its lifetime, correct?
Anyway, so based on the information that was developed, the
24
MR. TURNER:
25
THE COURT:
Objection.
All right.
Hearsay.
If he only knows about that

(212) 805-0300
690
F1kdulb4
from hearing about it from somebody else, then it would be
hearsay.
Do you have any independent sources of information
where you learned the volume of sales, either approximately or
concretely, that occurred on Silk Road?
6
7
THE WITNESS:
them, no.
8
9
10
Other than what was shared with me from
THE COURT:
All right.
And that's hearsay.
So --
BY MR. DRATEL:
Q.
Did you ever read the complaint in this case?
11
THE COURT:
That is hearsay, too, so it is not
12
admissible evidence.
13
Q.
14
earning $2 million a month in commissions, right, based on the
15
value of bitcoin and the volume of sales that you were able to
16
monitor during that period, right?
17
A.
Sounds about accurate.
18
Q.
And, again, back in 2012, bitcoin hadn't nearly even
19
approached that $100 per bitcoin, right?
20
A.
No.
21
Q.
Right.
22
commissions would have been worth a lot more, right?
23
about $10, it would have been worth ten times as much, $20
24
million a month in commissions with the same volume, right?
25
A.
Now, in November of 2012, you computed that Silk Road was
It was under $10, I believe.

So by the April of 2013, that same $2 million in
If it was
Well, the commission was based on the sales price, and the
(212) 805-0300
691
F1kdulb4
sales price would have fluctuated when compared to the value of
bitcoin.
of the bitcoin.
Q.
were seized from Mr. Ulbricht's laptop, right?
A.
Yes.
Q.
They were worth $29 million at the time of seizure, right?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And by November 18, 2013 -- withdrawn.
Now, that $144,000 -- I'm sorry, the 144,000 bitcoins that
10
11
So, I mean, it would have been relevant to the cost
The price of bitcoins skyrocketed, as we talked about

Thursday, right, after the arrest?
12
MR. TURNER:
Objection.
Timeframe.
13
Q.
After October 1st, 2013, by the end of the year, between
14
then and the end of 2013, bitcoin at one point exceeded $1,000
15
per bitcoin, right?
16
A.
It went over a thousand dollars, yes.
17
Q.
And as of November 18, 2013, that $29 million worth of
18
bitcoin would have been worth $96.5 million, right?
19
A.
Yes.
20
Q.
So anybody holding bitcoins during that period of six/seven
21
weeks would have seen a 500 percent return, right?
22
A.
That's accurate, yes.
23
Q.
There was a significant amount of law enforcement activity
24
devoted to investigating Silk Road, right?
25
A.
Yes, there was.

(212) 805-0300
692
F1kdulb4
Q.
Multiple agencies?
A.
There were multiple agencies involved, yes.
Q.
Multiple United States Attorney's offices?
A.
Multiple United States Attorney's offices.
Q.
Multiple offices even with within your agency, Chicago,
Baltimore, other places, right, New York?
A.
That is correct.
Q.
And you, as part of your investigation, and others, would
try to -- withdrawn.
10
During the course of your investigation, you managed
11
to gain control of a number of user accounts with Silk Road,
12
correct?
13
A.
Yes, I did.
14
Q.
Most of them buyer accounts?
15
A.
I mean, it was split up, buyer/vendor accounts, yes.
16
Q.
So -- and you alone had more than a dozen, maybe even two
17
dozen, that you could sign on to, right?
18
A.
19
I created myself on the market, six or so that I created on the
20
forums.
21
Q.
22
you created, also the ones that you assumed control over when
23
people either were arrested or voluntarily gave you access to
24
their account, right?
25
A.
I had not that many, but I probably had like six or so that
No, not that you created, but also in addition to the ones
That is correct.
(212) 805-0300
693
F1kdulb4
Q.
So that increases that number, doesn't it?
A.
It does, yes.
3
4
THE COURT:
you have?
So how many of those, approximately, did
You got the six that you created yourself?
THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
Correct.
How many, approximately, did you take over
in one form or another during the entire time that you were in
the business of taking over accounts?
THE WITNESS:
10
11
THE COURT:
Approximately about a dozen.

All right.
So you touched personally
about 18 accounts?
12
THE WITNESS:
13
THE COURT:
That sound about right, yes.

All right.
14
BY MR. DRATEL:
15
Q.
16
accounts other agents had access to as well?
17
A.
18
password to.
19
Q.
20
another day, right?
21
A.
22
would only be one agent utilizing it.
23
Q.
24
taking over these accounts were to make the undercover
25
purchases that you had talked about, right?
And you also told us, I think Thursday, that some of these
Some of them, yes, other agents I gave the username and
So you might be on one day and another agent might be on
Not if it was being utilized in an undercover capacity.
And during this period of time, one of the reasons for

(212) 805-0300
It
694
F1kdulb4
A.
Oh, a few of them were used in that capacity, yes.
Q.
So you made about 50 such purchases, right?
A.
That was from one account, yes.
Q.
And the purpose of those purchases was not to keep the site
going, right?
A.
No, it wasn't to keep the site going.
Q.
But at the same time you are sending money overseas --
bitcoins overseas to drug dealers, who were pocketing that
money, right?
10
A.
It's going into, yes, their hands.
11
Q.
And you don't really have access to them the way you would
12
if someone who perhaps was in the United States doing the same
13
thing even if you could identify them, right?
14
A.
15
reciprocity, especially with a lot of governments that we were
16
dealing with at the time, to get legal action if we needed to.
17
Q.
18
undercover operation, putting money into these drug dealers'
19
pocket, right, without any recourse in the sense that they
20
weren't being arrested, right?
21
A.
22
them.
23
Q.
24
undercover buys stopped?
25
A.
We have processes through MLAT that could give us
But at the time you were essentially, as part of the
We were doing that for the purpose of trying to arrest
Right.
No.
But isn't that one of the reasons why the
There was money that had to be allocated for those

(212) 805-0300
695
F1kdulb4
purposes, and at the time we just didn't have -- we stopped
actually collecting seizures around April 2013, and then we
stopped doing buys after that since we weren't collecting the
seizures.
Q.
undercover accounts, you were also paying a commission to Silk
Road, right?
A.
That was something that was automatically taken out, yes.
Q.
And you don't know whether that has ever been recovered,
And in those purchases that were made through the
10
right?
11
A.
12
recovered or not, no.
13
Q.
14
I don't know if the exact bitcoins that we put in got
Now, the government -- withdrawn.

You had administrative privileges in July of 2013 as
15
Cirrus, right?
16
A.
On the forum I did, yes.
17
Q.
And the government, the U.S. government, got access to the
18
Silk Road servers no later than July 23, 2013, right?
19
A.
The FBI did.
20
Q.
And the FBI could have pulled the plug right then because
21
they had the servers, right?
22
A.
I don't know what their capabilities were at the time.
23
Q.
Well, they had the servers, correct?
24
possession of the servers, if they wanted, correct?
25
MR. TURNER:
Objection.
They physically had
Foundation.

(212) 805-0300
696
F1kdulb4
1
THE COURT:
Why don't you dig in a little more to what
the FBI had and what this witness knows.
Q.
servers, right?
A.
They had an image that came back as a server.
Q.
But they knew the location of where that server existed as
a physical thing?
8
9
As of July 2013, the FBI knew the location of Silk Road's
MR. TURNER:
I object.
As to this witness'
foundation?
10
THE COURT:
Why don't you investigate with this
11
witness what he knows about the location.
12
Q.
You know where the location was, right?
13
A.
They had an up IP address for where they got the image that
14
did come back as being Silk Road's server.
15
Q.
16
located, right?
17
18
But what I'm saying is you know where the servers were
MR. TURNER:
Q.
Foundation.
You know that --
19
MR. TURNER:
20
THE COURT:
21
Q.
22
verified, right?
Objection.
Sustained.
-- from the investigation of the information that has been
23
MR. TURNER:
24
THE COURT:
25
Objection.
Objection.
Sustained.
You need to ask it
differently.
(212) 805-0300
697
F1kdulb4
Q.
During the course of your investigation you learned the
physical location, the country, that those servers were located
in, right?
MR. TURNER:
Again, objection.
MR. DRATEL:
I am asking if he learned.
THE COURT:
He can answer that yes or no.
A.
knew.
Foundation.
Only from what I was told where they were at is what I
THE COURT:
Did you learn from any other source apart
10
from what you were told?
11
about that, about the location of the Silk Road servers?
12
THE WITNESS:
13
THE COURT:
14
BY MR. DRATEL:
15
Q.
16
investigation?
Did you see any written documentation
I did not.
All right.
You were told by law enforcement agents to facilitate your
17
MR. TURNER:
18
THE COURT:
19
MR. DRATEL:
20
THE COURT:
Objection to the hearsay.

Sustained.
Under Rule 807 again, your Honor.
The objection is sustained.
21
BY MR. DRATEL:
22
Q.
23
knew that they were going to image the servers, correct?
Did you know that the FBI knew where the location -- you
24
MR. TURNER:
25
THE COURT:
Objection.
Again, hearsay.
Well, let me ask you.
Did you yourself

(212) 805-0300
698
F1kdulb4
ever -- did you have any personal involvement in the imaging of
the servers?
THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
No, I did not.

Did you receive written documentation that
related to the imaging of the servers?
THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
No, I did not.

All right.
He is not the right witness
for this so we'll do it through somebody else.
MR. DRATEL:
Your Honor, I do have another question
10
for him, which is:
11
Q.
12
because when the traffic would be less, that the admins won't
13
be on the site?
14
A.
15
this later on when I had access to the control?
16
be more specific?
17
Didn't you tell FBI New York when to image the servers
Is there a particular date that you are referring to?
THE COURT:
Is
If you could
Did there come a point in time when you
18
communicated with anyone else in law enforcement as to a date
19
when the servers would be imaged, from your perspective?
20
21
THE WITNESS:
initial capture of the Silk Road server.
22
THE COURT:
23
MR. DRATEL:
24
25
I didn't have any involvement in the
your Honor.
All right.
I am going to show this for impeachment,
I show you 605, 3505-605.
THE COURT:
Did you have any involvement in any of

(212) 805-0300
699
F1kdulb4
1
these subsequent captures?
THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
Subsequent captures I might have, yes.

And the word "capture" there refers to the
imaging of a server, is that right?
THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
Right, the actual imaging.

All right.
BY MR. DRATEL:
Q.
words, take down the servers, right?
10
So you were informed that the FBI was going to, in your
THE COURT:
Hold on.
The question is -- for
11
impeachment purpose, the question, for which it would be
12
impeaching, is whether or not he told the FBI on a particular
13
date to take down, not whether or not he learned of a takedown.
14
Q.
15
the 22nd, yes, 22nd of July 2013, you told the FBI a specific
16
time to take down the servers, right?
17
A.
There would be a time that --
18
Q.
First let's answer that question.
19
All right.
So on July 20 -- in July 2013, I think it is
Did you tell the FBI a specific time that would be a
20
good time to take down the servers?
21
A.
I did.
22
Q.
And that was because you said there wouldn't be a lot of
23
administrative work on the site and so that -- is that right,
24
there wouldn't be admins?
25
A.
There wouldn't be administrative action on the site, yes.

(212) 805-0300
700
F1kdulb4
Q.
nobody could notice, right, if possible?
A.
That was because you wanted it to be done in a way that
I would think, yes.

THE COURT:
mid-afternoon break.
MR. DRATEL:
THE COURT:
Mr. Dratel, we are going to take a

Is this an OK time for you to stop?
This is fine.
Ladies and gentlemen, let's take our
mid-afternoon break.
And I want to remind you not to talk to
each other or anybody else about this case.
10
Thank you very much.
11
THE CLERK:
12
All rise as the jury exits.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(212) 805-0300
701
F1kdulb4
(Jury not present)
THE COURT:
You can step down because you are on break
as well.
(Witness not present)
THE COURT:
All right.
Let's all be seated and see
what we've got.
In terms of the line of questioning relating to
expertise, I think I had been clear that what the witness
learned about in terms of expertise that was unconfirmed is
10
what he learned unconfirmed.
11
the purposes of saying X was a computer expert, but there will
12
be ways of wording it that there was indications attached to
13
his name.
14
because it is not in for the truth.
15
16
You will have to be very careful how that is used
Is there anything that you folks would like to raise

right now?
17
18
It won't be usable testimony for
MR. TURNER:
Can I just make a record on that, your
Honor?
19
THE COURT:
20
MR. TURNER:
Yes.
Because those statements aren't relevant
21
for anything unless they are being offered for the truth.
22
the government objects to what Scott, the agent, read on
23
LinkedIn coming in for the truth.
24
LinkedIn page.
25
themselves on a LinkedIn page.
And
Anybody can create a
Anybody can say anything they want about

That is why there are rules of

(212) 805-0300
702
F1kdulb4
1
hearsay that exist.
So the fact that he read it as plaintiff's word, it
doesn't gift it any more legitimacy or doesn't make it any more
admissible.
Honor wants to give a limiting instruction, but there is really
no other relevance for it coming in except for the truth of it.
So that is what the government has concerns about.
8
9
And I just am afraid that -- I recognize your
THE COURT:
ruling stands.
I understand the government's concern.
I think I have given them an instruction each
10
time that this has occurred.
11
knowingly.
12
My
The jury I think seems to nod
They understand the difference.
And, look, there are ways in which I think the
13
limiting instructions are effective.
14
very cognizant of those limiting instructions when you decide
15
how to use the information in your closing.
16
You folks will have to be
But your objection, Mr. Turner, is noted.
The Court
17
is trying, with many of the now very active evidentiary
18
objections, to draw appropriate lines.
19
lines where the question is not perfect but it is not so
20
imperfect as to create a terrific issue if allowable, and that
21
has been true on the government's direct examination as well.
22
So I'm hopeful that people will after this witness get
23
themselves into a routine where we just let each other do our
24
thing.
25
But we'll take it as it comes.
The lines are sometimes
I mean, the

(212) 805-0300
703
F1kdulb4
objections, generally speaking, they have been appropriate and
so they require rulings.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(212) 805-0300
704
F1kgulb5
1
2
3
THE COURT:
Did you have anything to do before we take
a break?
MR. DRATEL:
Yes.
On the complaint, just one sentence
from the complaint about these figures, talking about Silk
Road, these figures are equivalent to roughly 1.2 billion in
revenue and 79.8 million in commissions at current bitcoin
exchange rates.
paragraph -- but it's an admission by a party opponent under
801.2(a), (b), (c) or (d).
10
11
And this is from the complaint and it's from
It fits all of them.
It only has
to fit one.
THE COURT:
That is an interesting argument because
12
you would never allow a whole variety of statements to be put
13
in from a complaint with any evidentiary basis that were
14
against the defendant.
15
have no -- they have zero evidentiary value apart from what
16
comes in by virtue of the trial.
17
think that if you want to make a point about what kind of
18
business was conducted on Silk Road --
19
MR. DRATEL:
Typically, statements in complaints
No.
So I hear your point.
It's the numbers that the government
20
said -- the government is going to take a dramatically
21
different position at this trial.
22
THE COURT:
23
MR. DRATEL:
It doesn't matter.
But it does because it's an admission by
24
them of a certain number and now they're going to do a much
25
lower number; and the only reason they're doing a much lower
(212) 805-0300
705
F1kgulb5
number is because they want that number to mysteriously all of
a sudden match what's in Mr. Ulbricht's computer as opposed to
a number four or five times that.
THE COURT:
MR. TURNER:
Mr. Turner, why don't you address it?

I can address that.
First of all, the
complaint explained that the figures given were based on the
present value of those bitcoins at the time of the complaint.
At the time, we weren't able to convert the bitcoins so that
they matched the value of the bitcoins at the time of each sale
10
in question, so the value of bitcoins is fluctuating.
11
could have had ten bitcoins received by the site in 2012 that
12
were worth a lot less than they would be when they were
13
received for sale in 2013.
14
So, you
The complaint which is based on the total number of
15
bitcoins that flowed to the site were converted to the value,
16
the exchange rate of bitcoins at the time that the complaint
17
was sworn because of our limitations that we had.
18
the figures were changed when we introduced the aggregate sales
19
and aggregate profits from the site later on is because now we
20
have a chance to go through the transaction of data more
21
carefully.
22
The reason
Each transaction in the database records the number of
23
bitcoins received and the value of those bitcoins at the time
24
of each sale.
25
That's what the data reflect.
THE COURT:
Why don't you address --

(212) 805-0300
706
F1kgulb5
MR. DRATEL:
THE COURT:
That's not a true value.

Hold on.
Why don't you address the
evidentiary issue as to whether or not this could be an
admission of a party opponent?
MR. TURNER:
It's not a statement against itself and
it's not a statement of this witness, so all it is is a
statement of a particular agent based on what he knew at the
time.
MR. DRATEL:
That's exactly what the rule requires.
10
It doesn't require being against interest.
11
for (a) the party's own statement in either an individual or
12
representative capacity; or (b) a statement of which the party
13
has manifested an adoption or belief in its truth -- this is
14
sworn under oath September 27, 2013 for the purpose of
15
obtaining an arrest warrant against Mr. Ulbricht; (c) a
16
statement by a person authorized by the party to make a
17
statement concerning the subject; or (d), the statement by the
18
party's agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope
19
of the agency or employment made during the existence of the
20
relationship.
21
The rule requires
It qualifies under any of those.
MR. TURNER:
None of these statements were made by
22
this witness or any agent of this witness or this agent did not
23
swear out the complaint, so it's not an admission by this
24
witness.
25
MR. DRATEL:
And I'm not asking that of this witness.

(212) 805-0300
707
F1kgulb5
1
2
I'm moving it independently -THE COURT:
You can't get it in through this witness
every possible statement made by the government as an admission
by a party opponent.
MR. DRATEL:
6
7
By itself, it's admissible.
In other
words, by itself; it doesn't need a witness.

THE COURT:
If it doesn't need a witness and it can be
by itself admissible, I need some cases on that or a case or
two, because in terms of the way this is -- we don't need it
10
right now, right, because it can come in at any point in time.
11
MR. DRATEL:
12
THE COURT:
An admission is an admission.
You're using the complaint in a very
13
unique way in terms of getting in an admission through a
14
complaint.
15
complaints are used as you know, even when evidence is coming
16
in contrary.
17
It's not typical; it's not typically the way
I will look at it, however.
I have not looked that
18
question before and given that it's not necessary to get it in
19
through this witness, there's no urgency to doing it right now.
20
MR. DRATEL:
I'll call Judge Maas if I have to,
21
Magistrate Judge Maas.
He signed the complaint.
22
They came to him as the United States government.
23
going to resist this, okay.
24
THE COURT:
25
MR. DRATEL:
You know -We'll call the judge.

(212) 805-0300
He read it.
They're
708
F1kgulb5
1
THE COURT:
Whether or not any testimony on this would
be relevant from a judge or from anyone I think is part of the
question that I want to explore.
whether or not what you're suggesting is an admission, which is
a statement in a complaint at the outset of a case when many
things changed.
It may be, Mr. Dratel.
MR. DRATEL:
THE COURT:
So I need to investigate
It's under oath.

I'm not suggesting it's not under oath.
That's the best information at the time.
10
MR. DRATEL:
But --
11
THE COURT:
Hold on.
I'm not suggesting you can't
12
have it.
What I'm suggesting is, if it doesn't have to come in
13
through this witness, I need to look at it because I've never
14
had an attorney try to use a statement from a complaint as
15
evidence in a criminal proceeding because you certainly never
16
want any of the evidence obviously against the defendant to
17
come in.
18
MR. DRATEL:
19
THE COURT:
But that's not the point.

Even if there was evidence from a
20
coconspirator, that there's a coconspirator statement recited
21
in the complaint, you'd never want that in.
22
MR. DRATEL:
That doesn't matter because if I was
23
impeaching with grand jury testimony, I wouldn't put in the
24
whole grand jury.
25
That's neither here nor there.
I'd put in the part that impeaches the guy.

And the fact that --

(212) 805-0300
709
F1kgulb5
1
THE COURT:
Look, I need to look at this is what I'm
suggesting.
MR. DRATEL:
I'm also saying to you, the fact that a
party changes its mind during the course of a litigation does
not vitiate the fact that at one point it took that position
under oath as a fact and that's an admission.
THE COURT:
You know, you may be right.
And it may be
right in the sense other than for this particular witness or it
may be right for another witness.
10
I need to look at it.
That's what I'm suggesting.
11
Is there anything else on this topic?
12
MR. DRATEL:
13
THE COURT:
No, your Honor.

I would take from anybody who would like
14
to put in a letter any cases that they have supporting that
15
position.
16
witness, it can come in tomorrow morning.
17
18
Since it doesn't have to come in through this
Anything else we need to deal with before we take a

break?
19
MR. TURNER:
Not from the government.
20
MR. DRATEL:
No, your Honor.
21
THE COURT:
22
Thank you.
We'll take a short break and
then come on back and stay until.
23
(Recess)
24
25
THE COURT:
Let's bring out the jury.

(212) 805-0300
710
F1kgulb5
(Jury present)
MR. DRATEL:
Thank you.
BY MR. DRATEL:
Q.
a second, based on your investigation, what you were able to
verify from your subpoenas, that silkroadmarket.org was being
run off a web hosting company owned by Mr. Karpeles?
A.
Yes.
10
Q.
Thank you.
11
we talked about FBI access to the servers.
12
the imaging of the server, the Silk Road server was going to be
13
done in the country where the servers were located, right?
Based on your investigation, going back to Mr. Karpeles for
Now, I want to go back to July 22, 2013.
14
MR. TURNER:
15
THE COURT:
And
Now, you knew that
Why don't you establish what kind of
16
knowledge he has about that and then you can take it step by
17
step.
18
Q.
19
correct?
Well, the FBI had the IP address for the Silk Road server,
20
MR. TURNER:
21
THE COURT:
Sustained.
22
Q.
23
knowledge either before --
24
25
Have you seen documents from the FBI with respect to its
MR. TURNER:
Q.
Objection.
-- either before or since with respect to -SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300
711
F1kgulb5
THE COURT:
MR. TURNER:
A.
it.
Objection; hearsay.
I haven't seen documentation of an IP that I was told about
5
6
I'll allow this.
THE COURT:
You did not see documentation about an IP
address?
THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
A server that allegedly had the Silk Road
site resident on it?
10
11
Of?
THE WITNESS:
Not that I recall, but I know they had
an IP address.
12
THE COURT:
Okay.
All right.
13
Q.
Now, at the time in July of 2013, when you told the FBI a
14
good time to take down the servers, what did you mean by "take
15
down"?
16
A.
17
it so they would have to take it offline.
18
they'd have to take it offline to image it.
19
Q.
20
continuing to be used to sell drugs around the world?
21
A.
22
take a capture of it.
23
Q.
But not to stop the site?
24
A.
Not to stop it, no.
25
Q.
In fact the site went on for the rest of July, August and
I know that they were -- they were going to do an image of

I was guessing
You didn't mean take down as in stop the servers from
No.
I believe they were taking it down to image them to

(212) 805-0300
712
F1kgulb5
September, right?
A.
It did.
Q.
All the while, the FBI had the image of the servers and the
IP address for the servers, right?
A.
They did.
Q.
So there was a lot of pressure to get to the point to get
to the point to take down the site entirely, wasn't there?
A.
from, yeah, from basically our management and from the people
There was -- there was pressure from our management and
10
that are working with the U.S. Attorney's Office; yes.
11
Q.
12
information and this website selling drugs all over the world
13
continuing to operate, right?
14
MR. TURNER:
15
THE COURT:
16
You can ask him a little bit differently as opposed to
And nobody was comfortable with the FBI having all this
Objection; form.
Sustained.
17
everybody, your comfort level for everybody.
18
Q.
19
the site continuing to run unimpeded?
20
A.
21
for the U.S. Attorney's Office to make.
22
Q.
23
comfort level with continuing to let the site operate.
Were you comfortable with having all this information and
It's not a call for me to make.
I'm not talking about the call.
24
MR. TURNER:
25
THE COURT:
It's something that it's
I'm talking about your
Objection; relevance.
Sustained on those grounds.

(212) 805-0300
713
F1kgulb5
Q.
Wasn't there a discussion among agencies about that, about
the need to do something about the site?
management was not comfortable with it.
this is not hearsay this is just for the fact that it was said.
You just said

What was that?
MR. TURNER:
Objection.
MR. DRATEL:
This is not the investigation.
THE COURT:
MR. TURNER:
THE COURT:
And
We have now -Form and relevance.

We're going to change the question.
You
10
have a couple different questions embedded in there because you
11
started off on one tact and then went to a different one.
12
Restate the question.
13
MR. DRATEL:
Okay.
14
Q.
You said before in your answer that management had an
15
issue -- there was pressure from management about letting the
16
site continue to run.
17
manifest itself?
18
MR. TURNER:
19
THE COURT:
What was that pressure?
How did it
I'll allow that.
20
A.
There was obviously a concern it wasn't necessarily a
21
pressure, there was concern over -- there's pressure about
22
wanting to shut down the site and do it properly, I mean, we
23
want to do it and take down the site properly.
24
Q.
What does that mean, "properly"?
25
A.
Well, just by turning off a server doesn't completely shut

(212) 805-0300
714
F1kgulb5
down the site.
If -- especially with like a Tor site, you
would have to have ownership of it.
key over it.
can just pop it back up again on another server somewhere else.
And if you don't arrest the person that's running it, then --
there, too, they can just reopen the site again and you let on
your hand, you let on your investigation and you didn't really
solve anything then at that point.
Q.
You would have to have a
If you don't have full control over it, someone
In fact, Silk Road 2.0 was up and running by early November
10
of 2013, right?
11
A.
Silk Road -- there was a Silk Road 2.0; yes.
12
Q.
And virtually identical service as Silk Road that was
13
operated on those other servers, right?
14
A.
It was very similar to Silk Road 1, yes.
15
Q.
Now, with respect to closing the site down, there was
16
discussion among law enforcement about doing it as early as
17
May or June, right?
18
A.
19
recollect.
20
Q.
21
highlighted parts.
22
but let me know when you're finished.
23
A.
Okay.
24
Q.
So, you had been told at one point that the FBI said it
25
would take the site down in May or June of 2013, right?
If there's a document you're referring to to help me
Sure.
It's marked as 3505-3004.
I'd ask you to read the
You can read the rest of it if you want,

(212) 805-0300
715
F1kgulb5
A.
That was a rumor that I heard from another HSI office.
Q.
And you yourself on the 23rd, the very day that the sites
were imaged, you said that they were -- you were getting close
to taking the website and all the operators down, right?
A.
We were making progress at that point, yes.
Q.
Getting close?
A.
Getting close.
Q.
Now, when Silk Road 2.0 obviously was back up in early
November, that was after Mr. Ulbricht's arrest, right?
10
A.
It was.
11
Q.
Now, as we've discussed, this investigation was being
12
pursued by a number of different agencies in a number of
13
different locations in the U.S., right?
14
A.
It was.
15
Q.
And internationally, too, right?
16
A.
Yes.
17
Q.
And is it fair to say that there was some competition among
18
agencies with respect to this investigation?
19
MR. TURNER:
20
THE COURT:
21
Q.
22
Sustained.
Weren't different agencies -- withdrawn.

HSI was pursuing it in Chicago, right?
23
A.
Yes, we were suing Silk Road in Chicago.
24
Q.
And also HSI Baltimore was pursuing it, right?
25
A.
There was also an investigation of Silk Road within HSI

(212) 805-0300
716
F1kgulb5
Baltimore.
Q.
And the Secret Service was involved in that, right?
A.
There was a task force, yes.
Q.
And HSI Baltimore and HSI Chicago didn't always see eye to
eye, correct?
MR. TURNER:
THE COURT:
Same objection.
Overruled.
A.
Can -- there was differences, but I mean, it was both going
after similar targets at the same time.
10
Q.
Right.
But there were differences in how to do it and
11
differences on who would get credit for it, right?
12
A.
13
putting in and how we were going after the targets.
14
different method for investigating -- they had different
15
methods than what we did.
16
Q.
17
giving out information to other locations, whether it's HSI or
18
task force or others, would be compromising that information
19
because it might be used in a way that would impair the
20
confidentiality of the investigation?
21
A.
22
disseminated if it was disseminated properly or if it or if it
23
would be shared in ways that was outside of our knowledge.
24
Q.
25
resolve differences, correct?
Well, there was differences on the work that we were

There's a
And Chicago, and you in particular, were concerned that by
There were concerns over how information would be
In fact, Chicago and Baltimore even had a meeting to try to

(212) 805-0300
717
F1kgulb5
MR. TURNER:
THE COURT:
Sustained.
Q.
Well, the differences in how to proceed between Chicago and
Baltimore were so dramatic that there had to be a meeting,
right, to try to resolve it?
MR. TURNER:
THE COURT:
Sustained.
Q.
There was a meeting between Chicago and Baltimore about the
direction of the investigation and splitting responsibility
10
responsibilities, right?
11
A.
Can you be more specific on a time frame?
12
Q.
Sure.
13
A.
That was -- the initial meeting that we had I believe with
14
or around about the time -- February, you said 2012?
15
Q.
Yes, uh-huh.
16
A.
I believe that might have been a coordination meeting among
17
multiple agencies.
18
Q.
19
down Silk Road soon, right?
February 2012, February 1, 2012?
And Baltimore said at that meeting that it was shutting
20
MR. TURNER:
Objection; relevance and hearsay.
21
MR. DRATEL:
Goes to the investigation.
22
THE COURT:
Hold on.
Let me think about it.
23
allow a few more of these.
24
and it's not offered for the truth, so I'll allow it.
25
MR. DRATEL:
I'll
I think I know where you're going
Right.

(212) 805-0300
718
F1kgulb5
1
THE COURT:
You may proceed.
Q.
So Baltimore said in February of 2012 that it was going to
shut down Silk Road soon?
A.
believed they could shut it down quickly.
Q.
that you had gathered in Chicago and then issuing subpoenas for
the same targets, right?
They -- I believe they said something similar, that they
There was concern about Baltimore taking the information
THE COURT:
Why don't you -- just so we're clear and
10
the record is clear, just ask him about his concerns as opposed
11
to generalized concerns.
12
MR. DRATEL:
Sure.
13
Q.
One of your concerns was that your work product, in
14
essence, that you had input into law enforcement computers was
15
then being taken by other offices and they were issuing
16
subpoenas and potentially compromising the investigation,
17
right?
18
A.
19
information between law enforcement agencies, and one of the
20
concerns if it isn't done through that proper procedure that it
21
could then lead to duplication of efforts and other agencies
22
pursuing other aspects outside of the investigation.
23
Q.
And that was going on through 2012, correct?
24
A.
There were concerns from time to time about things of that
25
nature, yes.
There's a proper procedure on how to disseminate

(212) 805-0300
719
F1kgulb5
Q.
And another source of difference of opinion was whether or
not Baltimore should meet with Mr. Karpeles' lawyers or meet
with him?
MR. TURNER:
THE COURT:
Q.
problems, right?
Objection.
Sustained.
You were frustrated a fair amount of the time by these
MR. TURNER:
THE COURT:
Sustained.
10
Q.
11
law enforcement in New York would somehow tip off the
12
investigation of Silk Road, right?
13
A.
Is there a particular time frame?
14
Q.
Yes.
15
A.
There was multiple -- a lot of things were going on with
16
multiple agencies, there was a long period of time, and in
17
between that at different points in time, different
18
representatives from multiple agencies would contact me and
19
contact us in a variety of ways and it wouldn't always come
20
from just one source within the agency.
21
other people from different locations.
22
Now, you were also worried that the New York office, the
August of 2012?
It would come from
So there was always concerns based upon what those
23
particular agencies are doing when they're getting involved how
24
far along their investigation is in compared to ours.
25
was time periods along the way that we would have -- we would
(212) 805-0300
So there
720
F1kgulb5
be concerned obviously about where an agency, if they were
contacting us, where that would lead.
Q.
York in particular, correct?
MR. TURNER:
THE COURT:
MR. TURNER:
THE COURT:
9
10
So to get back to my question, you were concerned about New
Objection.
What was the objection?
Relevance.
I think I know where it's going, so I'll
allow a few more of these, but why don't you get to where it's
going so I'm not thinking the wrong thing.
11
MR. DRATEL:
12
THE COURT:
I'm trying.
Okay.
Try to pull it in quickly;
13
otherwise, I'll think that I've gotten your direction wrong.
14
A.
15
just --
16
Q.
17
New York, right?
Is this the New York OCDETF group you're talking about or
Intel reports coming from New York -- intel reports from

There were intel reports issued by New York?
18
MR. TURNER:
Objection; form, vagueness.
19
THE COURT:
20
You may answer.
I'll allow that.
21
A.
There was -- that had to do with a particular intel group
22
that was based in the northern part of New York that was -- the
23
seizures that we were taking in in O'Hare, they were trying to
24
do deliveries and trying to do actions on those particular
25
packages that were interfering with our investigation on the

(212) 805-0300
721
F1kgulb5
vendors as we were pursuing the vendors with those seizures.
Q.
your seizures on their intel report, correct?
A.
for our investigation in a product that was used to disseminate
seizures out to be used by other agencies.
Q.
could potentially jeopardize over a year's worth of
investigation evidence, right?
The problem was that an agent in New York was including
They were including seizures that we were holding already
And you thought that putting -- and doing that, you thought
10
A.
By -- yes, by taking those seizures and put them out there
11
falsely to other agencies to use them in different ways without
12
letting me know about our investigation, yes, they can
13
jeopardize it.
14
Q.
15
concerned that Chicago HSI, once the focus was on Mr. Ulbricht,
16
Chicago HSI might not get any place at the table with respect
17
to this investigation, right, in terms of credit?
18
A.
19
recollect my memory.
20
Q.
Sure, 319.
21
A.
Thank you.
Fast-forwarding to September of 2013, you were also
If there's a particular email that you can help me
3505-319.
22
THE COURT:
23
MR. DRATEL:
24
it already.
25
A.
So what's the question?

I didn't know if he was finished reading
Okay.
(212) 805-0300
722
F1kgulb5
Q.
September 20, 2013, you were concerned that the Southern
District of New York would prosecute people allegedly involved
in Silk Road without anyone else being involved in the
prosecution, right?
A.
and Chicago at the time where it was going to be occurring
where -- trying to make -- trying to basically include them in
with the arrest with Ulbricht to share the information that we
had from the New York case and find ways to bridge differences
Well, this was in reference to a meeting between Baltimore
10
with your investigation.
11
discussed between a manager and I about just some of the
12
different ways that we could approach that and how it could be
13
perceived after the take-down.
14
Q.
15
So this was something that was being
Wasn't one of your concerns -THE COURT:
Mr. Dratel, are you close to the line of
16
questioning or should I get a proffer on relevance, because I
17
don't think I was correct.
18
MR. DRATEL:
19
THE COURT:
20
MR. DRATEL:
21
22
I'm close to the end.
That's fine.
A question or two?
Why don't you come over to the side bar
and let me know the relevance and see if I'm on the same page.
23
24
25
(212) 805-0300
723
F1kgulb5
(At the side bar)
THE COURT:
I just wanted to get a sense of the
relevance.
but I also think I may be wrong.
it's relevant.
I have in my mind where I think you could be going,
MR. DRATEL:
Otherwise, I don't see how
It's about the progress of the
investigation and the fact that at a certain critical point,
once Mr. Ulbricht was on the radar of the Southern District of
New York, that everyone else had to fall in line or else they
10
would not be permitted to participate, and that ultimately --
11
and this is all in the 3500 -- he says to his supervisor or his
12
whoever he is talking to, he says and these -- he's talking
13
about Baltimore -- he said basically unless people do it the
14
way the Southern District wants, that they can whine all they
15
want, but it won't stop SDNY from prosecuting all of them
16
without any of us.
17
18
THE COURT:
different version.
19
MR. DRATEL:
20
THE COURT:
21
MR. DRATEL:
My ruling is that's irrelevant.
I had a
That's not where I thought you were going.

It is relevant.
It's not relevant.
It's not relevant.
Once Mr. Ulbricht came on the radar,
22
everything else was shunt to the side because the Southern
23
District was going to get its way and these people had to --
24
25
THE COURT:
My ruling is that's not relevant.
different version or view.

(212) 805-0300
I had a
724
F1kgulb5
MR. DRATEL:
THE COURT:
Which is?
I'm not going to give you your
relevance --
MR. DRATEL:
THE COURT:
Conspiracy theories?
It was about ten questions ago, I thought
you were going someplace else, so I allowed this but that's not
relevant.
8
9
MR. TURNER:
There's also a reference to Mark Karpeles
to the document shown to him and I'm worried about defense
10
counsel asking questions about how Mark Karpeles was stalling
11
the investigation, how they were going to Mark Karpeles again.
12
13
14
THE COURT:
questioning.
We're going to leave this line of
Thank you.
MR. DRATEL:
You said "this line of questioning."
15
also was going to ask him because subsequently to all of this
16
at the end of the September, he is invited by the Southern
17
District to participate in the arrest of Mr. Ulbricht, it's
18
basically like a largess by the Southern District and he
19
recognizes that a hundred percent.
20
THE COURT:
Also irrelevant.
21
MR. DRATEL:
I think it is.
22
23
24
25
(212) 805-0300
725
F1kgulb5
1
BY MR. DRATEL:
Q.
Now, with regard to competition -- withdrawn.
With regard to agencies and the arrest of
Mr. Ulbricht, afterwards wasn't HSI Chicago concerned about
having the HSI banner be on the seizure at some point?
MR. TURNER:
THE COURT:
Q.
Objection; form and relevance.

Sustained.
Now, you spent thousands of hours on Silk Road you said,
10
right?
11
A.
I did.
12
Q.
As a supposed buyer, right:
13
buyer accounts, utilizing seller accounts?
14
A.
I did.
15
Q.
As an administrator?
16
A.
I did.
17
Q.
And the first time you heard Ross Ulbricht's name was
18
either September 10 or September 11 of 2013, right?
19
A.
Around that time frame.
20
Q.
You had been investigating the site for two years, right?
21
A.
Yes.
22
Q.
And many of these accounts that you took over were from
23
back of 2012, right, or the ones that you even started, many of
24
them go back to 2012, right?
25
A.
In other words, utilizing
Some of them do, but I mean, if there were accounts taken

(212) 805-0300
726
F1kgulb5
over regularly, even in 2013.
Q.
talked about, right?
A.
There were other agencies investigating; yes.
Q.
And in the manner we discussed, they shared their work
product with you, right?
A.
A lot of them did; yes.
Q.
And do you know about state and local enforcement?
know how many accounts they had running on Silk Road?
Now, there were other federal agencies investigating as we
Do you
10
A.
I have no way of knowing.
11
Q.
Do you know how many other federal agencies, how many
12
accounts they were running on Silk Road?
13
A.
14
headquarters component.
15
Q.
16
enforcement community was running on Silk Road, U.S. federal?
17
A.
18
and just see if it -- if anyone else was either looking at it
19
or was aware of.
20
Q.
So you don't know how many?
21
A.
I don't know how many; no.
22
Q.
And how about by foreign law enforcement, other countries
23
that could have been looking into Silk Road?
24
many accounts they were running?
25
A.
We had a method to try and deconflict that through a
What was the total amount of accounts that the federal law
I don't know the total number, but we could submit a name
Do you know how
I do not know.
(212) 805-0300
727
F1kgulb5
1
Q.
right?
You used other facets of your investigation, too, right,
MR. TURNER:
Objection; form.
Q.
In pursuit of your investigation you used a lot of
materials, right, a lot of methods, right?
THE COURT:
Why don't you restate that.
You have
methods, materials, facets.
Q.
You had a lot of methods in your investigation, right?
A.
Used as many investigative methods as possible.
10
Q.
And as many sources as possible, right?
11
A.
As many sources as we could; yes.
12
Q.
So that's subpoenas and search warrants, right?
13
A.
We used subpoenas and search warrants, yes.
14
Q.
Confidential informants?
15
A.
And confidential informants.
16
Q.
What's a Tecs, T-E-C-S?
17
A.
It's the name of the program, not the program, the system
18
that Customs and Immigration uses for their databases.
19
Q.
Did you use that as well?
20
A.
Yes, I did.
21
Q.
And you also had help from people who had expertise in
22
computers and bitcoins and Tor help you as well, right?
23
A.
24
would talk to from time to time.
25
Q.
What's a TECS?
We had confidential informants and other people that we
And when you gained access to these accounts, one of the

(212) 805-0300
728
F1kgulb5
purposes was to try to find the identity of DPR, right?
A.
If possible, yeah; that was one of the main priorities.
Q.
And you had substantial contact with DPR, right?
A.
After acquiring the cirrus account, yes.
Q.
But you also had a chance to look at all of his forum posts
and everything else that was available on the site, right?
7
8
MR. TURNER:
Objection to form; "everything else
available on the site."
THE COURT:
10
Hold on.
You can restate.
11
Q.
Forum posts, you had access to that, correct?
12
A.
To the ones that were available to my account, yes.
13
Q.
And also once you got on the site in 2012, you had access
14
to the forums, right?
15
A.
16
user role as to how much you could see under that user role.
17
Q.
Okay.
18
A.
I did.
19
Q.
And finally you were administrator, right?
20
A.
That's correct.
21
Q.
During all of that time until September 10, Mr. Ulbricht
22
never appeared on your radar?
23
A.
He did not.
24
Q.
Until a digital trail presented him to you on a silver
25
platter, right?
Yes, but there was a limited access depending upon your
And then did you increase that user role over time?

(212) 805-0300
729
F1kgulb5
A.
Until Special Agent Gary Alford brought it to my attention,
Mr. Ulbricht was not part of my investigation.
Q.
months after Mark Karpeles is put on notice of a federal
investigation based on a seizure of his accounts at Dwolla,
right?
And this is late September 2013, right, after -- five
7
8
MR. TURNER:
Objection to the "late September."
It
misstates prior testimony.
THE COURT:
10
It has a couple of objections.
Why don't you restate.
Let's not put argument in
11
there.
12
Q.
13
result of the May 2013 seizure of his accounts as we discussed
14
on Thursday, right?
15
A.
Yes, for the money seizure, yes.
16
Q.
And Ross Ulbricht comes on your radar three and-a-half
17
months later, right, maybe four months?
18
A.
In September of 2013.
19
Q.
May, June, July, August.
Mr. Karpeles was on notice of a federal investigation as a
20
Nothing further.
21
THE COURT:
22
Mr. Turner.
23
MR. TURNER:
24
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
25
BY MR. TURNER:
Thank you?
All right.
Thank you.

(212) 805-0300
730
F1kgulb5
Der-Yeghiayan - redirect
Q.
Good afternoon, Special Agent Der-Yeghiayan.
A.
Good afternoon.
Q.
Good to talk to you again.
the difficulty of figuring out who was on the other side of the
screen when you were talking to DPR, Dread Pirate Roberts?
A.
Yes, I was.
Q.
And am I right that every conversation you had with him was
on Tor?
A.
Every conversation I had with him was on Tor, yes.
10
Q.
And he was security conscious, right?
11
A.
He was security conscious, yes.
12
Q.
Did he reveal many personal details about himself in the
13
conversations he had with you?
14
A.
No.
15
Q.
So it was hard for you to figure out who DPR was just from
16
your own line of communications with him, is that right?
17
A.
18
was, yes.
19
Q.
20
way that you did it?
21
MR. DRATEL:
22
THE COURT:
On cross, you were asked about
Nothing personal.
It was difficult to try to identify who the real person
So what was the whole purpose of arranging the arrest the
23
Q.
24
the arrest was what?
25
A.
Objection.
Sustained.
You testified on direct that you would be -- the plan for
The plan for the arrest was to try to get Mr. Ulbricht in a
(212) 805-0300
731
F1kgulb5
public setting and then to initiate a chat with Dread Pirate
Roberts for the purposes of seeing if --
MR. DRATEL:
Objection.
THE COURT:
You may continue.
THE WITNESS:
I will allow it.
For the purposes of seeing if the chat
would match between the person we were arresting and Dread
Pirate Roberts.
Q.
To see who was on the other side of the screen that day?
10
MR. DRATEL:
Objection.
11
THE COURT:
12
You may answer.
I'll allow it.
13
A.
Yes.
14
Q.
And when you saw the defendant go into the library that
15
day, you were monitoring DPR online, right?
16
A.
Yes, I was.
17
Q.
And when he walked in was DPR online or offline?
18
A.
When he walked in, he was offline.
19
Q.
And after he went in, what happened to DPR's online status?
20
A.
He went online.
21
MR. DRATEL:
22
THE COURT:
23
Q.
Objection as to form.
Overruled.
Did you start chatting with DPR after he went online?
24
MR. DRATEL:
25
THE COURT:
Objection to form.
I'll allow it.

(212) 805-0300
732
F1kgulb5
A.
Yes, I did.
Q.
And what happened to the chat once the defendant was
arrested?
MR. DRATEL:
I'm going to object based on the chat
because it's unclear what kind of chat.
online is a specific medium that they were communicating
through, not anything precise.
8
9
10
THE COURT:
This whole thing about
Ladies and gentlemen, the chat that's been
referred to so far has not been oral communications, it's been

the written chat.
11
MR. DRATEL:
12
THE COURT:
That's not what I mean.

I'm going to -- why don't you, Mr. Turner,
13
why don't you back up and talk about the type of chat and I
14
will allow it.
15
16
MR. TURNER:
Sure.
The jury heard about this chat
before.
17
Can we put up Government Exhibit 129C back on the
18
screen.
19
zoom in on the text, Mr. Evert.
20
Q.
Could you
There you go.
Now do you know what chat I'm talking about?
21
22
Zoom in on the text please up at the top.
MR. DRATEL:
That's not the issue.
The issue is the
medium.
23
THE COURT:
24
MR. DRATEL:
25
THE COURT:
I will allow it.

It's not -I'll allow it.
We've been through this on

(212) 805-0300
733
F1kgulb5
1
direct.
It's more of the same.
You may proceed, Mr. Turner.
MR. TURNER:
Mr. Evert, can you please zoom in to the
right side of the screen.
Q.
Okay.
Zoom in fully.
Perfect.
Thanks.
So do you remember this chat, Agent Der-Yeghiayan?
THE COURT:
MR. TURNER:
This is GX 129C?
Yes.
A.
Yes, I do.
Q.
What happened in the chat after the defendant was arrested?
10
A.
There was no response from dread.
11
Q.
And when you went up to the library to look at the
12
defendant's computer, what did you see on the screen?
13
A.
14
Roberts.
15
Q.
Who was on the other side of the screen that day?
16
A.
Ross Ulbricht.
17
Q.
Now, let's take a look at this chat -- by the time you had
18
this chat, you had been working for DPR for how long?
19
A.
Since late July 2013.
20
Q.
Over two months, right?
21
A.
Yes.
22
Q.
You had had numerous chats with him up to this point
23
before, right?
24
A.
I had.
25
Q.
Could just anybody strike up a chat with DPR on this
I saw an identical chat that I just had with Dread Pirate

(212) 805-0300
734
F1kgulb5
system?
A.
No, they could not.
Q.
What did you have to have?
A.
You had to have log-in credentials that are provided by
Dread Pirate Roberts.
Q.
And how did he provide those to you?
A.
It was provided to the original operator through a private
message.
Q.
And it was a private message on the Silk Road forum, right?
10
A.
Yes, it was.
11
Q.
And would DPR ever contact you on the Silk Road forum?
12
A.
He would send private messages to me, yes.
13
Q.
Would he sometimes tell you to get on chat?
14
A.
Yes, he would.
15
Q.
And then after he told you that on the Silk Road forum,
16
what would happen on the chat window?
17
A.
18
Then he would initiate a chat with me on the staff chat.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(212) 805-0300
735
F1kdulb6
Q.
So the connection between the DPR on the Silk Road and the
DPR on the chat was seamless, is that right?
MR. DRATEL:
Objection.
THE COURT:
Why don't you rephrase that.
MR. TURNER:
Sustained.
Sure.
Q.
What credentials did you have to have to log into your chat
account in the staff chat system?
A.
I had to have a unique username, which wasn't really a
10
username.
It was a string of characters and numbers, and a
11
password.
Again, that was provided to me.
12
Q.
13
of the chat?
So what did DPR have to have in order to log into his side
14
MR. DRATEL:
Objection.
15
Q.
What did any user of this sort of system have to have in
16
order to log into the chat?
17
A.
They had to have a username and a password, I'm assuming.
18
Q.
Was there ever a time when you were chatting with DPR where
19
someone seemed to take over your account and start sending
20
messages to DPR that you had no control over?
21
A.
Can you repeat that.
22
Q.
Was there ever a time when you were chatting with DPR and
23
someone seemed to take over your account and send messages to
24
DPR that you had no control over?
25
A.
No.
(212) 805-0300
736
F1kdulb6
1
Q.
It never happened.
So on the date of the defendant's arrest, when you
started up this chat with DPR -- if you go back to the chat,
please.
back out a little bit more.
6
7
You can leave it up on the screen.
Could you actually
Right here.
You start off the chat, you said, "Hi."

back, "Hey."
And DPR said
Right?
MR. DRATEL:
Objection.
Q.
Is that how the chat went?
10
A.
Yes.
11
Q.
He didn't ask why are you appearing on my screen?
12
MR. DRATEL:
13
THE COURT:
14
Q.
Objection.
Sustained.
He didn't say who are you?
15
MR. DRATEL:
Objection.
16
THE COURT:
17
Why don't you just ask him what the communication
Sustained.
18
consisted of.
19
Q.
20
flagged messages for me," you were referring back to a prior
21
conversation you had had with him earlier, is that right?
22
A.
Yes, I was.
23
Q.
What conversation was that?
24
A.
There was multiple chats that I had with him ever since he
25
provided me access to that administrator page and to the
When you say "check out," "can you check out one of the

(212) 805-0300
737
F1kdulb6
flagged message section of the marketplace.
Q.
When did he first show you the flagged messages page?
A.
I would have to go back on the exhibit.
Q.
Was it days before or weeks before or even longer before?
A.
It was weeks before.
Q.
So weeks before you had this chat he had shown you the
flagged messages screen?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And when you brought it up here, he didn't say what flagged
10
messages screen are you talking about?
11
MR. DRATEL:
12
THE COURT:
13
Q.
14
Objection.
Sustained.
He said, "Sure, let me login."

What did he have to log into in order to get to the
15
flagged messages screen?
16
A.
17
administrator rights.
18
that would have access to that support page.
19
Q.
20
exchange before you started working for me, right?"
21
In order to access that page, you would have to have

So you would have to have an account
Then later he asked you, unprompted, "You did bitcoin
Now, the person you took over the Scout account from,
22
the Cirrus account from, what kind of business was she involved
23
in?
24
25
MR. DRATEL:
Q.
Objection.
Foundation.
If you know?
(212) 805-0300
738
F1kdulb6
MR. DRATEL:
THE COURT:
Foundation.
Why don't you try to build up a foundation
for it, first.
Q.
the Scout account or --
Do you know what sort of business the person who took over
MR. DRATEL:
THE COURT:
Objection.
No.
Foundation.
Let me just hear the question first
and then I will decide if I will let him answer.
Q.
10
11
12
Do you know what sort of business the person who was
engaged -- excuse me.

Do you know what sort of business the person who you
took over this Cirrus account was engaged in?
13
MR. DRATEL:
14
THE COURT:
15
THE WITNESS:
16
THE COURT:
17
Objection.
Can you answer that "yes" or "no"?

Yes, I do.
All right.
THE WITNESS:
19
THE COURT:
21
How did you obtain that
information?
18
20
Foundation.
There was -Just tell me generally the source of
information that you used.

THE WITNESS:
Clear.
It is a choice point.
So it is
22
a government operated account that we have that gives business
23
data based upon like Social Security number, things of that
24
linked to a person, so it will tell if they have a business
25
registered to him.
(212) 805-0300
739
F1kdulb6
THE COURT:
MR. DRATEL:
THE COURT:
All right.
I will allow the question.
I am still going to object on foundation.

I hear you.
BY MR. TURNER:
Q.
What sort of business was that person involved in?
A.
They had a bitcoin business.
Q.
Had you ever mentioned to DPR on your Cirrus account that
you were involved in a bitcoin exchange business?
A.
Not that I recall.
10
Q.
You never represented that in your undercover capacity?
11
A.
No, I did not.
12
Q.
So if DPR knew this from Cirrus, he would have heard it
13
before you took over the account --
14
15
MR. DRATEL:
Q.
16
Objection.
-- is that right?
THE COURT:
Sustained.
17
Q.
When did you take over the Cirrus account?
18
A.
Late July of 2013.
19
Q.
So that would have been information conveyed to DPR more
20
than two months before this conversation, is that right?
21
MR. DRATEL:
22
THE COURT:
Objection.
23
answer that question.
24
BY MR. TURNER:
25
Q.
You can ask it differently but he can't

Sustained.
After you saw the chat on the defendant's computer, you

(212) 805-0300
740
F1kdulb6
eventually took part in the search of the defendant's
residence, is that right?
A.
I did.
Q.
And you testified about the handwritten notes you recovered
from Mr. Ulbricht's bedroom, is that right?
A.
Yes, I did.
Q.
And during cross-examination, the defense asked you
something like would someone running Silk Road be so careless
to leave notes like that in the trash; do you remember that?
10
A.
I do recall that, yes.
11
MR. TURNER:
12
way, Government Exhibit 130.
13
Q.
Do these notes say Silk Road on them anywhere?
14
A.
No, they do not.
15
Q.
Do they say illegal drugs on them anywhere?
16
A.
No, they do not.
17
Q.
How were you able to recognize what these notes were about?
18
A.
From my account that I was operating on Silk Road and being
19
active in the Silk Road forums, it was something that stood out
20
to me.
21
Q.
22
Can you put the notes back up, by the
If a random person picks these notes -MR. DRATEL:
23
Q.
24
concerned Silk Road?
25
MR. DRATEL:
Objection.
-- out of a trash bin, would they have any idea that they
Objection.

(212) 805-0300
741
F1kdulb6
1
THE COURT:
Sustained.
Q.
By the way, you said earlier that you identified Ross
Ulbricht's bedroom in the residence by the personal effects
that were inside the bedroom, right?
A.
I did.
Q.
Passport, credit cards, that sort of thing?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Did you recover the personal effects of anyone else in that
bedroom?
10
A.
There was another alias, I believe, on one of the
11
documents.
12
Q.
13
else who lived in that bedroom with him?
Beside "alias" documents, did there appeared to be anyone
14
MR. DRATEL:
15
THE COURT:
Objection.
I will allow it.
16
A.
No.
17
Q.
By the way, you were asked on cross about travel records
18
that you reviewed for Mr. Ulbricht?
19
A.
Yes, I was.
20
Q.
And I think you testified you saw maybe one trip or two
21
trips a year, something like that?
22
A.
I believe that was what I recall, yes.
23
Q.
The travel records you have access to from HSI, do you have
24
access to records for trips anywhere around the world that
25
Mr. Ulbricht took?

(212) 805-0300
742
F1kdulb6
A.
Only trips that have an international nexus, so a
connection.
coming from outside into the country.
Q.
To or from the United States, right?
A.
Yes.
Q.
If he flies from one foreign country to the other, you
don't see that in your records?
A.
I do not see that, no.
Q.
You were asked on cross about someone named Mark Karpeles
So it has to be somewhere outside the country or
10
repeatedly, right?
11
A.
I was.
12
Q.
And one of the questions you were asked concerned software
13
called MediaWiki, do you remember that?
14
A.
I do.
15
Q.
You testified that there was a website you thought was
16
associated with Mark Karpeles --
17
18
MR. DRATEL:
Q.
Objection.
-- that used MediaWiki software?
19
THE COURT:
20
(Pause)
21
THE COURT:
Hold on.
Let me just read this.
Hold on.
I will allow it.
22
Q.
Right?
23
A.
Yes.
24
Q.
And what is MediaWiki software?
25
A.
It's an open source.
It is a free program that you could

(212) 805-0300
743
F1kdulb6
download from the Internet.
Q.
What is it used for?
A.
It's used to create Wiki pages.
Q.
FAQ pages, right?
MR. DRATEL:
Objection to leading.
THE COURT:
Why don't you ask it differently.
Sustained.
Q.
What do you mean, Wiki pages?
A.
So information pages, so it could be used to provide
10
information.
11
Q.
It is a tool for building pages --
12
13
MR. DRATEL:
Q.
Objection.
Leading.
-- on websites?
14
THE COURT:
I will allow it, just to sort of cut
15
through this.
16
A.
Yes, it is.
17
Q.
Go ahead.
18
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
And when you say "freely available," what do you mean?
20
A.
That means that anyone on the Internet can download it.
21
Q.
Anyone on the Internet can download it for free, right?
22
A.
Yes, without paying for it.
23
Q.
Just like are there browser software programs that you can
24
download from the Internet for free?
25
A.
Yes, there are.

(212) 805-0300
744
F1kdulb6
Q.
And sometimes those programs change from time to time,
right?
A.
Yes.
Q.
So some people can download one version and then it can
change and some people can download the next version?
There is different versions, updated versions.
MR. DRATEL:
THE COURT:
Objection.
I will allow it.
A.
Yes.
Q.
So you noticed that the same MediaWiki software was running
10
on -- was used to create Silk Road's FAQ page, is that right?
11
A.
12
Road --
13
Q.
14
thousands websites --
Yes.
Do you have any idea how many thousands or tens of
15
16
The same version of MediaWiki was used on the Silk
MR. DRATEL:
Q.
Objection.
-- had FAQ pages still using the same --
17
MR. DRATEL:
18
THE COURT:
Objection to the form.

I will allow it.
19
A.
I do not know.
20
Q.
I think you testified about Simple Machines software?
21
A.
I did.
22
Q.
And what is that software used for?
23
A.
It is to create online forums.
24
Q.
Like a discussion forum, right?
25
A.
Yes.
(212) 805-0300
745
F1kdulb6
Q.
Is that freely available software?
A.
Yes, it is.
Q.
Can anybody download it?
A.
Anyone can download it for free.
Q.
And use it to create a forum on whatever website they want?
A.
Yes.
Q.
You testified about PHP and MySQL, is that right?
A.
Yes.
Q.
What are those programs used for?
10
A.
It's just a free program that you could download that is a
11
language that helps you build and create websites.
12
Q.
13
websites use PHP or MySQL?
Do you have any idea how many thousands or millions of
14
MR. DRATEL:
15
THE COURT:
Objection to form.
Why don't you ask a different --
16
Q.
Do you have any idea how many websites in the world use PHP
17
or MySQL?
18
A.
I don't but I know it is popular.
19
Q.
You testified on cross that there was a time when you were
20
looking at whether Mark Karpeles might be involved in operating
21
Silk Road, correct?
22
A.
Yes.
23
Q.
And in terms of what initially led you to look at Mark
24
Karpeles, you testified it was something about the
25
silkroadmarket.org website, is that right?

(212) 805-0300
746
F1kdulb6
A.
Yes.
Q.
Remind the jury, what is the silkroadmarket.org website?
A.
It was a website that was on the regular Internet that if
you were to search Silk Road on a regular Internet browser, you
would potentially find this website first, since it wasn't on
Tor, and it would redirect you, give you directions
step-by-step on how to access the Silk Road marketplace on Tor.
MR. TURNER:
THE COURT:
Your Honor, may I approach?

You may.
10
Q.
I'm showing you what's been marked as Government Exhibit
11
149.
12
A.
OK.
13
Q.
Do you recognize this exhibit?
14
A.
I do.
15
Q.
What is it?
16
A.
It's a screenshot from archive.org of a Silk Road market
17
page.
18
Q.
Silkroadmarket.org?
19
A.
Silkroadmarket.org page --
20
21
MR. TURNER:
evidence.
22
MR. DRATEL:
23
THE COURT:
24
25
The government offers Exhibit 149 into
Objection.
Vayner.
You need to lay a foundation for this
witness for this document.

MR. TURNER:
Your Honor, we have -- if I can, I will

(212) 805-0300
747
F1kdulb6
authenticate it under 902 with a declaration from archive.org,
and we won't have to have a sidebar.
archive.org, and it came through the cross as a tool that can
archive reliably websites over time.
THE COURT:
I need to take a look at that testimony to
remind myself of that.
the moment, subject to connection.
MR. TURNER:
THE COURT:
10
We have already discussed
I am going to allow the document for
Thank you.
And then, ladies and gentlemen, I will let
you know if there is a issue and we need to strike it.
11
But you can proceed.
12
(Government's Exhibit 149 received in evidence)
13
MR. TURNER:
14
So could we publish Government Exhibit
149?
15
THE COURT:
You may.
16
MR. TURNER:
17
Can you zoom in?
Thank you.
18
Q.
All right.
So was this all there was to the website?
19
A.
This was all there was.
20
Q.
And it just told you how to get to the actual Silk Road
21
website on Tor, right?
22
A.
Yes.
23
Q.
It wasn't the actual Silk Road website at all?
24
A.
No, it was not.
25
Q.
It wasn't on Tor?
(212) 805-0300
748
F1kdulb6
A.
It was not on Tor.
Q.
It was just on the ordinary Internet?
A.
It was a regular website, yes.
Q.
And because it was on the ordinary Internet, you were able
to look up its true IP address on who.is like you told us about
before, right?
A.
Yes.
MR. TURNER:
THE COURT:
May I approach again, your Honor?

You may.
10
Q.
I show you what's been marked as Government Exhibit 150.
11
A.
OK.
12
Q.
Do you recognize this Web page?
13
A.
Yes, I do.
14
Q.
Where is it from?
15
A.
It's who.is -- a screenshot of who.is searching
16
silkroadmarket.org.
17
18
MR. TURNER:
The government offers Government Exhibit
150 into evidence under 803(17).
19
MR. DRATEL:
20
THE COURT:
21
(Pause)
22
I will allow it.
23
(Government's Exhibit 150 received in evidence)
24
MR. TURNER:
25
Mr. Evert?
Objection, your Honor, Vayner.

All right.
I need to take a look at it.
Government Exhibit 150 is received.
Can you publish Government Exhibit 150,
Could you zoom in here.
Zoom in just on that half,

(212) 805-0300
749
F1kdulb6
please.
Q.
OK.
A.
Yes.
Q.
And you found it was controlled -- it was on a server that
was going to --
So you looked up silkroadmarket.org on who.is, right?
MR. DRATEL:
Objection.
MR. TURNER:
Your Honor, I'm trying to get done before
THE COURT:
Even though you are trying to get done, we
5.
9
10
may have to have him back anyway, so take your time.
11
MR. TURNER:
OK.
12
Q.
So where did you find the IP address resolve back to?
13
A.
It came back to a server that was under XTA, an XTA server.
14
Q.
You testified on cross that you found that xta.net was
15
registered to Mark Karpeles, right?
16
A.
Yes.
17
Q.
You found that based on publicly available information?
18
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
So you decided to look for Mark Karpeles, is that right?
20
MR. DRATEL:
Objection.
21
MR. TURNER:
Your Honor, this has already come in
22
through cross.
23
MR. DRATEL:
24
THE COURT:
25
not to lead.
I know, but the leading parts -Try not to lead.
I will allow it.
Take your time.

(212) 805-0300
Try
750
F1kdulb6
BY MR. TURNER:
Q.
So you decided to look for Mark Karpeles, is that correct?
A.
Yes, I did.
Q.
You wanted to see if there was anything further --
5
6
MR. DRATEL:
Q.
Objection.
-- in this connection?
MR. DRATEL:
THE COURT:
MR. DRATEL:
10
THE COURT:
11
MR. DRATEL:
Objection.
Sustained.
Objection as to the -I'm sustaining it.
OK.
12
BY MR. TURNER:
13
Q.
14
Mr. Karpeles' email, is that right?
15
A.
Yes, I did.
16
Q.
And you searched through all those emails?
17
A.
Yes, I did.
18
Q.
When did you finish looking into those emails, by the way?
19
A.
It took me awhile, a few weeks, a month maybe.
20
Q.
What time of year?
21
A.
It's hard to say.
22
Q.
Was it in 2014?
23
A.
Because I think by the time we got it later on, it probably
24
ended early 2014.
25
Q.
You testified on cross you got a search warrant on
OK.
When did you --
So this was after Mr. Ulbricht's arrest you finished

(212) 805-0300
751
F1kdulb6
looking up through all those emails, is that correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And when you looked through all those emails, what kind of
company did you learn that Mr. Karpeles ran?
MR. DRATEL:
Objection.
Foundation.
THE COURT:
MR. DRATEL:
THE COURT:
Hold on.
Sustained.
We are going to have to come at it a
Well -Hearsay.
I get the drift.
10
different way, based on what we did earlier.
11
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
12
Q.
13
about?
What sort of email did you see?
14
MR. DRATEL:
15
THE COURT:
What were the emails
Objection.
I will allow there to be a topical
16
description, but it is not for the truth.
17
topics.
18
Gander/goose.
It's just for the
You may proceed.
19
A.
Generally, I mean, it was about his hosting services that
20
he had, so the majority of the emails that were coming through
21
revolved around that as well as his bitcoin business.
22
MR. DRATEL:
Objection.
23
MR. TURNER:
Your Honor, this all came in during
24
cross.
25
Q.
You testified on cross he hosted websites, is that right?

(212) 805-0300
752
F1kdulb6
A.
Yes, he did.
Q.
OK.
way?
A.
So what was his Web hosting company called, by the
KalyHost.
MR. DRATEL:
THE COURT:
Objection.
Foundation.
I will allow it.
Q.
K-a-l-y-h-o-s-t?
A.
H-o-s-t.
Q.
Did it go by any other names that you saw in emails?
10
MR. DRATEL:
11
THE COURT:
Objection.
Ladies and gentlemen, if he did and didn't
12
confirm it, then it wouldn't be in for the truth, it is just
13
for what he saw in the email, and the email may have had
14
certain words, and I will allow is for that purpose.
15
A.
AutoVPS I believe was the name of the other company.
16
Q.
Remind the jury what a Web hosting company does.
17
A.
Web hosting is a company that you could go to to host
18
websites.
19
Q.
Right.
20
A.
So you could buy services from them.
21
Q.
And does that involve renting server space from the
22
companies?
23
A.
That does include that.
24
Q.
So if you -- you said earlier that you looked up
25
Mr. Karpeles and there were many, many servers registered to

(212) 805-0300
753
F1kdulb6
him, many IP addresses registered to him, right?
A.
That's correct.
Q.
If you own a car rental company, do you own a lot of cars?
A.
You own a lot of cars, yes.
Q.
What do you do with those cars?
A.
Other people.
Q.
Right.
the cars?
You rent them out to?
Do you control where those other people drive with
MR. DRATEL:
10
THE COURT:
Objection.
Sustained.
11
Q.
With a Web hosting company, when the Web hosting company
12
rents out its servers to other people, does the Web hosting
13
company control what the customers put on their websites?
14
A.
No, they do not.
15
THE COURT:
16
minutes on the dot.
17
18
MR. TURNER:
Honor.
19
We are going to end in just about two
I think I can almost get through, your
I think I can get through.

THE COURT:
But don't rush it in terms of I'm not sure
20
that this witness -- I don't know whether this witness will be
21
on or off the stand, so I just want to make sure that you don't
22
proceed on that assumption.
23
Go ahead.
24
BY MR. TURNER:
25
Q.
All right.
Now, when a customer of a Web hosting company

(212) 805-0300
754
F1kdulb6
sets up a website, is there any type of information the
customer has to provide in order to register the website?
MR. DRATEL:
THE COURT:
Objection.
Sustained unless you can build a
foundation for that.
Q.
Do you know?
A.
Just what I have observed through looking through Mark
Karpeles' emails.
MR. DRATEL:
10
Q.
11
Mr. Evert.
Let's back out of this area of the document here, please,
12
You testified before that you are familiar with the
13
who.is database, right?
14
A.
I am.
15
Q.
Is this database relied on regularly by people to figure
16
out who websites are registered to?
17
MR. DRATEL:
Objection.
18
MR. TURNER:
I am building a foundation, your Honor.
19
THE COURT:
20
ask him if he relies upon it.
21
MR. TURNER:
22
Q.
23
I know but not to "everybody."
You can
Sure.
If a person -- well, excuse me.

Do you rely upon who.is in order to determine who a
24
website is registered to?
25
A.
There is information you could use off of that, yes.

(212) 805-0300
755
F1kdulb6
Q.
that purpose?
A.
4
5
It is a publicly available database that is available for
Yes, it is.
THE COURT:
All right.
Mr. Turner.
MR. TURNER:
THE COURT:
to get through it.
another day.
10
We are going to end here,
All right.
OK.
I know that you have made a valiant effort
But you are going to have to come back
Ladies and gentlemen, I want to thank you
11
for your patience with us today.
12
to talk to each other or anybody else about this case, and to
13
avoid any mentions of this case that you may see in any news
14
reports or media reports of any kind.
15
tomorrow morning.
16
17
And I want to remind you not
And we'll see you
We'll start at 9:30, I hope, right on time.

very much.
Good night.
18
THE CLERK:
All rise as the jury leaves.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(212) 805-0300
Thank you
756
F1kdulb6
1
(Jury not present)
THE COURT:
Let's all be seated here.
(Witness not present)
THE COURT:
Why don't you go ahead and step down, sir.
Not knowing what there will be on these
topics for any recross, which I am considering in light of all
the back and forth we have, we have had a lot of evidentiary
objections -- for instance, if there were recross, I would not
necessarily cut it off.
I didn't want to have you end with
10
this witness and then have pressure whether or not to bring him
11
back.
12
difficulty we have had with everything today, to proceed and
13
let it unfold as it needs to unfold.
14
I wanted to for this particular witness, given the
Mr. Dratel, Mr. Turner had suggested earlier that he
15
is about to end with this witness.
16
four, five, six topics I think he has covered.
17
mean that you have to cover all of them, but at this point are
18
you thinking of any recross?
19
MR. DRATEL:
20
THE COURT:
21
That doesn't
Yes, your Honor.

Approximately how long do you think you
will take on one or more of those topics?
22
23
I have one, two, three,
MR. DRATEL:
Your Honor, let me just look through my
notes.
24
THE COURT:
25
(Pause)
Yes.

(212) 805-0300
757
F1kdulb6
1
2
MR. DRATEL:
I would think right now we're about 15
minutes.
THE COURT:
All right.
Terrific.
So we ought to then
plan on, if all goes well in the morning we'll be moving on to
our next witness, which will, I'm sure, some relief to us all.
In terms of tomorrow's examination, is there anything
that people expect to come up that we ought to be thinking
about right now versus having to deal with it tomorrow?
know the nature of, generally speaking, where folks are getting
10
exorcised and not.
11
12
We now
MR. TURNER:
With respect to this witness or the next,
your Honor?
13
THE COURT:
No.
Right now I am just dealing with this
14
witness.
15
know of that is going to come up, for instance, that's going to
16
be getting into areas that we'll need to address.
17
so, I want to have a chance to think about them and you folks
18
as well.
19
I just want to see whether there is something that we
MR. TURNER:
Because, if
To the extent the defense wants to
20
revisit the issues that we went over today in terms of getting
21
back to the agent's beliefs about --
22
THE COURT:
23
MR. TURNER:
24
THE COURT:
25
I will let him preview that.

-- on redirect -There is nothing else that you are going
to be doing on your redirect that you expect will raise

(212) 805-0300
758
F1kdulb6
1
particular issues?
MR. TURNER:
THE COURT:
Not that I can think of right now.

All right.
Mr. Dratel, are there things
which you expect will raise particular issues?
MR. DRATEL:
THE COURT:
On this witness right now for tomorrow
MR. DRATEL:
Not directly related to the redirect.
THE COURT:
On this witness?
morning.
All right.
OK.
If anybody has any cases
10
on the statement relating to the complaint, I'm not finding
11
anything that's jumping out at me, but I don't have time to
12
look at it closely right now.
13
the morning and I'll read it.
14
Give it to me the first thing in
I also have gotten and you folks could presumably get
15
a copy of the sealed portion of the transcript.
16
get a copy of it and look at it and tell me whether there is
17
anything that comes out of it that you think we need to talk
18
about tomorrow morning, we will do that at 9 as well.
19
Is there anything else, folks?
20
MR. TURNER:
Nothing here.
21
MR. DRATEL:
No, your Honor.
22
THE COURT:
23
morning.
All right.
If you want to
No?
I will see you folks tomorrow
We are adjourned.
24
THE CLERK:
All rise.
25
(Adjourned to 9 a.m., Wednesday, January 21, 2015)

(212) 805-0300
759
INDEX OF EXAMINATION
Examination of:
JARED DER-YEGHIAYAN
Cross By Mr. Dratel
Redirect By Mr. Turner . . . . . . . . . . . . 729
6
7
Page
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 617
GOVERNMENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit No.
Received
149
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 747
150
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 748
10
11
12
DEFENDANT EXHIBITS
Exhibit No.
F
Received
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 631
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(212) 805-0300

USA v. Ulbricht Transcript, 1/20

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

USA v. Ulbricht Transcript, 1/20

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

USA v. Ulbricht Transcript, 1/20

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

562

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

ROSS WILLIAM ULBRICHT,

New York, N.Y.

HON. KATHERINE B. FORREST,

Special Agent Vincent D'Agostino

(Case called; in open court; jury not present)

Thank you for your accommodations.

Too bad it happened

seated, all of you -- of giving me some additional time to go

through some matters.

matter raised by the government in a letter this morning to go

It actually did have the advantage -- please be

I've got one and then possibly a second

The main matter that I wanted to address before we start

is the evidentiary issue left over on Thursday, which was the

subject of the significant letter submissions that I received

on the 19th from both sides.

submissions that you folks want to raise?

sense of how many things we need to address before we begin.

I just want to get a

There are three others.

Are they short or longer?

One of which we'd like to address at side bar.

Two I think are fairly short, two in

Is that the one from your short letter?

One is very short.

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

instruction should be given to the jury at some point that any

redactions they see in the exhibits should not be taken to mean

that might appear in the documents.

Mr. Dratel, do you have any opposition to

an instruction along those lines?

They're generally to protect private information

No, just that it's not relevant.

why it's redacted.

And another issue we wanted to raise is

during cross-examination on Thursday, the defense asked Special

Agent Der-Yeghiayan about whether there were restrictions about

what was sold on the site, that there were no assassinations,

there were no credit cards, stolen credit card information.

And as your Honor is aware, your Honor ruled originally that

the government cannot introduce evidence of uncharged criminal

conduct that occurred on the site, and we believe that the

defense's question has opened the door to that.

guns that were sold on the site.

There was counterfeit

There was stolen -- there's pirated software, etc.

Let me ask you about that because one of

it was also that the basis for getting that information in

required, I believe in some instances, getting through the

hearsay objection for the photographs of the website which

indicated the narcotics, that there's a coconspirator exception

which the Court made rulings on.

counterfeit Gucci belt, the question is, if you're going to say

that counterfeit things were, in fact, sold versus there were

advertisements such as X, I think there's a hearsay problem.