The post U.S. Prosecutors Clash With Crypto Advocates in Landmark Ethereum MEV Case appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Crime A courtroom in New York has become the latest front in a growing clash between crypto innovation and the reach of U.S. law. Federal prosecutors and industry advocates are now locked in a standoff over how far criminal liability can extend when code, competition, and money collide on the blockchain. At the center of the case are Anton and James Peraire-Bueno, two brothers accused of manipulating Ethereum’s infrastructure to pull off a $25 million trading exploit in 2023. Prosecutors claim the pair engineered a high-speed “bait-and-switch” that tricked automated trading bots — an act they describe as outright fraud. Defense attorneys call it something else entirely: an aggressive trading strategy made possible by blockchain design. Policy Meets Prosecution The case, being heard in the Southern District of New York, took an unexpected turn this week when federal lawyers moved to block the participation of Coin Center, a Washington-based crypto policy organization. Coin Center had filed an amicus curiae brief urging the court to consider the broader implications of the government’s arguments for blockchain users at large. Prosecutors quickly shot back, warning that the filing was an attempt to inject political debate into a criminal trial. In their letter to the court, they insisted that questions of digital-asset regulation “belong in Congress, not in a jury room.” The government’s tone left little room for ambiguity: allowing the policy brief, it said, would open the door to “jury nullification” and shift the focus away from evidence toward industry ideology. Defense Counters With Broader Stakes Lawyers for the brothers pushed back, arguing that the policy perspective is crucial to understanding the technological and economic context of the case. They said the government’s stance risks criminalizing routine blockchain activity — from algorithmic trading to validator operations — by framing them as deceptive simply… The post U.S. Prosecutors Clash With Crypto Advocates in Landmark Ethereum MEV Case appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Crime A courtroom in New York has become the latest front in a growing clash between crypto innovation and the reach of U.S. law. Federal prosecutors and industry advocates are now locked in a standoff over how far criminal liability can extend when code, competition, and money collide on the blockchain. At the center of the case are Anton and James Peraire-Bueno, two brothers accused of manipulating Ethereum’s infrastructure to pull off a $25 million trading exploit in 2023. Prosecutors claim the pair engineered a high-speed “bait-and-switch” that tricked automated trading bots — an act they describe as outright fraud. Defense attorneys call it something else entirely: an aggressive trading strategy made possible by blockchain design. Policy Meets Prosecution The case, being heard in the Southern District of New York, took an unexpected turn this week when federal lawyers moved to block the participation of Coin Center, a Washington-based crypto policy organization. Coin Center had filed an amicus curiae brief urging the court to consider the broader implications of the government’s arguments for blockchain users at large. Prosecutors quickly shot back, warning that the filing was an attempt to inject political debate into a criminal trial. In their letter to the court, they insisted that questions of digital-asset regulation “belong in Congress, not in a jury room.” The government’s tone left little room for ambiguity: allowing the policy brief, it said, would open the door to “jury nullification” and shift the focus away from evidence toward industry ideology. Defense Counters With Broader Stakes Lawyers for the brothers pushed back, arguing that the policy perspective is crucial to understanding the technological and economic context of the case. They said the government’s stance risks criminalizing routine blockchain activity — from algorithmic trading to validator operations — by framing them as deceptive simply…

U.S. Prosecutors Clash With Crypto Advocates in Landmark Ethereum MEV Case

2025/10/30 09:23
Crime

A courtroom in New York has become the latest front in a growing clash between crypto innovation and the reach of U.S. law.

Federal prosecutors and industry advocates are now locked in a standoff over how far criminal liability can extend when code, competition, and money collide on the blockchain.

At the center of the case are Anton and James Peraire-Bueno, two brothers accused of manipulating Ethereum’s infrastructure to pull off a $25 million trading exploit in 2023. Prosecutors claim the pair engineered a high-speed “bait-and-switch” that tricked automated trading bots — an act they describe as outright fraud. Defense attorneys call it something else entirely: an aggressive trading strategy made possible by blockchain design.

Policy Meets Prosecution

The case, being heard in the Southern District of New York, took an unexpected turn this week when federal lawyers moved to block the participation of Coin Center, a Washington-based crypto policy organization. Coin Center had filed an amicus curiae brief urging the court to consider the broader implications of the government’s arguments for blockchain users at large.

Prosecutors quickly shot back, warning that the filing was an attempt to inject political debate into a criminal trial. In their letter to the court, they insisted that questions of digital-asset regulation “belong in Congress, not in a jury room.”

The government’s tone left little room for ambiguity: allowing the policy brief, it said, would open the door to “jury nullification” and shift the focus away from evidence toward industry ideology.

Defense Counters With Broader Stakes

Lawyers for the brothers pushed back, arguing that the policy perspective is crucial to understanding the technological and economic context of the case. They said the government’s stance risks criminalizing routine blockchain activity — from algorithmic trading to validator operations — by framing them as deceptive simply because they exploit market inefficiencies.

“If the government’s theory stands,” one defense filing warned, “any deviation from a blockchain’s default behavior could be treated as criminal conduct.”

They argued that Ethereum users engage in inherently competitive behavior — and that the brothers targeted not innocent victims, but “sandwich bots”, automated traders that seek to profit from frontrunning other users’ transactions.

An Industry Watching Closely

The outcome could reverberate far beyond a single trial. A guilty verdict could redefine how the U.S. views maximal extractable value (MEV) — the process through which validators or traders reorder transactions to gain profit. Regulators have long wrestled with whether MEV represents legitimate arbitrage or systemic manipulation.

According to a European Securities and Markets Authority report released in July, Ethereum-based MEV activity generated roughly $963 million in total revenue and about $417 million in profit between late 2022 and early 2025. The Peraire-Bueno case marks the first time such practices have been tested in a criminal court.

Trial Moves Forward Amid Industry Tension

Opening arguments began on October 15, over a year after the indictment was issued. The brothers face charges including wire fraud, money laundering, and receipt of stolen property — each carrying a potential 20-year prison sentence.

Inside the courtroom, the legal arguments may revolve around evidence and code, but outside, the trial has become symbolic. For policymakers, it’s about whether the U.S. legal system can adapt to decentralized technologies. For the crypto industry, it’s about ensuring innovation isn’t mistaken for intent to deceive.

Coin Center has yet to respond publicly to the government’s effort to silence its input. But the organization’s involvement has already underscored the case’s larger importance: it is no longer just a dispute over one exploit — it’s a question of how far the definition of “fraud” should stretch in a world governed by algorithms.

As the trial continues into November, the crypto community is watching closely. The verdict could determine not only the fate of two brothers but the legal boundaries of blockchain competition itself.


The information provided in this article is for educational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or trading advice. Coindoo.com does not endorse or recommend any specific investment strategy or cryptocurrency. Always conduct your own research and consult with a licensed financial advisor before making any investment decisions.

Author

Alexander Zdravkov is a person who always looks for the logic behind things. He has more than 3 years of experience in the crypto space, where he skillfully identifies new trends in the world of digital currencies. Whether providing in-depth analysis or daily reports on all topics, his deep understanding and enthusiasm for what he does make him a valuable member of the team.

Related stories

Next article

Source: https://coindoo.com/u-s-prosecutors-clash-with-crypto-advocates-in-landmark-ethereum-mev-case/

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.
Share Insights

You May Also Like

Pavel's humanity, and Ton's challenges

Pavel's humanity, and Ton's challenges

I really like what Pavel mentioned about not using a mobile phone. Essentially, this is an "information fasting" approach to the challenges of information overload, contrasting with the "food fasting" that everyone loves using apps. One is metaphysical, the other is physical, but ultimately, both affect the mind and body, influencing hormones like cortisol. Now and in the future, attention is the scarcest resource. Being able to freely disconnect from electronic devices is a luxury, a freedom with its own barriers. Pavel is also an extreme craftsman. The advantage of being a craftsman is that you can lead a small team to create a killer app. However, the limitation is that Telegram, as the largest instant messaging software outside of China and the US, cannot become another Tencent platform. This same culture has also influenced its Web3 project, TON. By the way, let me talk about my close observation of TON over the past four years as the first Chinese institutional investor in the world. 1. The wrong technological path was taken. TON's stubborn insistence on using C++ seems like a kind of technological purist obsession. Historically, Russians have repeatedly taken the wrong turn on the "data technology tree": the Soviet Union failed to adapt to the transistor revolution, became obsessed with vacuum tube performance optimization, and missed the entire chip wave. They often overemphasize performance and control, but neglect the ecosystem and development experience. TON's SDK, toolchain, and documentation ecosystem lack standardization, making the development threshold too high; this is not a syntax problem, but a problem of lacking platform thinking. 2. Uneven ecological composition. Currently, it's basically only Russians and Chinese who are active, but resource allocation is clearly biased towards the Russian-speaking region. This is something everyone is already familiar with. 3. Oligopoly. Funding, traffic, and narrative resources within the ecosystem are concentrated on a few "top" companies/projects. Everyone knows they must curry favor with the "top" teams, but mid-tier projects are severely squeezed out. There is also a long-term power struggle between foundations and the oligopolistic "top" companies, resulting in constant internal friction. 4. Failure to accept oneself. Accepting and reconciling with oneself is crucial for any individual or organization. Only on this basis can you face yourself honestly and leverage your strengths while mitigating your weaknesses. However, TON seems obsessed with pitching to Musk, persuading American investors, and getting to the White House. The truth is, no matter how hard it tries, in the eyes of others, TON remains a public chain with a Russian background. In contrast, BNB didn't try to play the "American" role. Instead, it first became the most popular chain in the Eastern Time Zone, simultaneously creating a sense of FOMO (Fear of Missing Out) among Westerners, before smoothly expanding internationally—a much more effective approach. 5. The story of "adoption for 1 billion users" has been told for four years, and it's still just a story. Pavel keeps telling a grand story of "connecting Telegram's 1 billion users with the blockchain world," but this story has yet to truly materialize. The reason isn't that the vision is false, but rather structural constraints: In order to survive and ensure Pavel's personal safety (in recent years, Pavel has become increasingly obsessed with his physical safety, given several incidents, including the recent events in France), Telegram must maintain a "superficial" separation from TON to avoid crossing regulatory red lines; this separation prevents TON from ever truly integrating with Telegram's ecosystem. Even stablecoins like USDE have maintained a supply of only a few hundred million—indicating that the story is grand, but the reality is small. TON possesses the perfectionism of engineering geeks, yet lacks the warmth of ecological collaboration; it has a massive entry point, but is hampered by regulatory realities; it has its own advantages, but has not yet reconciled with itself. It has a narrative and ideals, but these need to be transformed into a sustainable balance of systems and incentives. I wish the TON ecosystem will continue to improve.
Share
PANews2025/10/30 14:00