ETH developer Virgil Griffith returns to jail after allegedly checking Coinbase accounts

Ethereum developer Virgil Griffith broke the terms of his bail and was arrested after allegedly accessing his crypto account.

The pre-trial detention came from U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel after Griffith allegedly sought access to Coinbase’s Ethereum assets in May.

The Ethereum Foundation researcher will likely spend the next two months. He is due to be tried on September 21 for conspiracy to violate sanctions against North Korea and face 20 years in prison.

According to Law360, Judge Castel’s main concern was escape risk, as Griffith’s assets have appreciated in value by up to $ 1 million, which may have influenced his decision to investigate his wallet, the judge said.

Prosecutors tried again on July 9, claiming Griffith violated bail terms, which severely restricted his internet use. He allegedly accessed Coinbase to contact the exchange to request the removal of account security features, allegedly saying, “I will need” [two-factor authentication] removed because the FBI took my equipment. “

Defense attorneys claim that the attempt to access Coinbase was made after consulting his attorney, adding that it was his family in Alabama who attempted on his behalf.

Griffith was charged and charged on January 7, 2020 after being arrested in November 2019 on charges of conspiracy in violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. It was initially denied bail, but received a $ 1 million bond in late December 2019.

Connected: Vitalik Buterin supports petition with freely arrested blockchain developer triển

Federal authorities believe he supported North Korea’s efforts to launder money using cryptocurrency to avoid US sanctions after attending a blockchain conference in Pyongyang in April 2019.

In October 2020, Griffith filed a motion to reject the conspiracy allegations, claiming that his April 2019 conference presentation contained publicly available information, which he therefore failed to provide. The following month, US government lawyers described the argument as “absurd”.