Of Virgil Griffith Dismissal speed A judge in New York’s Southern District (SDNY) denied allegations Friday night that he violated U.S. sanctions on North Korea.
U.S. Judge Kevin Castle denies Giffith the motion to determine whether he is guilty of helping North Koreans use U.S. cryptocurrencies to circumvent U.S. economic sanctions. SDNY prosecutors allege that Griffith violated international emergency economic power laws by giving a speech in April at the Pyongyang blockchain and cryptocurrency conference on how to use cryptocurrency to get US sanctions.
Griffith’s team argued that First Amendment rights protected him and that he did not provide “services” to North Korea because he received no compensation for the speech.
“Failure to allege that Griffith paid the DPR is not flawed in the indictment,” Castle wrote. “It is alleged that one of the motives behind the conspiracy was to provide services to the DPR.” Whether it was considered adequate and compensatory includes provisions for effective labor or human effort. “
The U.S. State Department banned all U.S. citizens From a trip to North Korea in 2017 without permission to publish. According to today’s ruling, Griffith’s request was initially rejected by the State Department, but was later granted to the DRP in Manhattan after the UN mission sent his CV, a copy of his passport, and expressed a desire to attend the conference.
In today’s judgment, Judge Griffith also denied the bill’s claim details. In December 2020, Griffith’s attorneys have filed the documents Arguments were made against him, arguing that he did not know exactly what he was saying or doing.
“Griffith claims that he is in the dark about the services he has been charged with providing the DPR,” Castell wrote. “However, Griffith’s briefing in this court has made it clear that he has come to know a lot of government evidence through his discovery. He not only seeks to bill the details as a way of knowing the information, but limits the evidence during the examination. As mentioned earlier, a statement of intent is not a tool of discovery to limit government evidence. “