MIT-Educated Brothers Challenge Google Search Evidence in $25M Crypto Fraud Case

Tech-savvy defendants fight back against digital evidence in high-stakes crypto trial.

Legal Battle Over Digital Footprints

Two MIT graduates face off against prosecutors attempting to use their Google search history as evidence in a $25 million cryptocurrency fraud case. The brothers claim search data doesn't prove wrongdoing—just curiosity about market opportunities.

The defense argues that searching for "how to hide digital assets" and "off-ramping crypto anonymously" demonstrates research, not criminal intent. Prosecutors counter that the timing aligns perfectly with alleged fraudulent transactions.

This case tests how digital behavior translates to legal evidence—because apparently in crypto, even your search history can get rekt. The outcome could set precedent for how courts treat digital footprints in financial crimes, potentially making Googling the wrong thing the modern equivalent of having suspiciously large bundles of cash.

Search history is not evidence, defense attest

According to federal prosecutors, the searches show consciousness of guilt from the defendants. But the Peraire-Bueno brothers insist they are just part of a prudent legal consultation during an ongoing investigation.

Court documents show one search for “top crypto lawyers” occurred the same day the brothers first contacted their legal counsel. Per the two MIT grads’ attorneys, if prosecutors use the searches, it will undercut the government’s argument that they are guilty. 

“For the government to argue its preferred inference, the government WOULD first need to establish that any given search was connected to this case,” the filing stated. “But the contents of the searches themselves do not show that.”

Alex Chandra, a partner at Indonesian-based IGNOS Law Alliance firm, said Google search histories can be used as hints, “but they’re context-dependent.” 

“The mere fact that someone googled something isn’t automatic proof of intent or guilt,” he explained, adding that searches conducted before a crime can suggest planning. However, those made afterward are not really profound indicators of intent. 

MIT brothers exploited Ethereum’s MEV, prosecution says

According to a US Department of Justice statement on the case, the brothers are accused of exploiting Ethereum’s Maximal Extractible Value (MEV) boost system in April 2023. They allegedly intercepted private transactions and manipulated them to siphon $25 million in just 12 seconds.

“And once they put their plan into action, their heist only took 12 seconds to complete,” US Attorney Damian Williams mentioned in his press briefing.

Authorities say the brothers targeted ethereum traders by altering pending transactions, allowing them to divert the crypto funds before the trades were finalized. Court filings further reveal that the pair retained legal counsel immediately after being contacted by anonymous “sandwich attackers” who demanded the return of the stolen funds.

Anton was detained in Boston, while James was booked in New York during their arrest in May last year. In the afternoon of their indictment, the former appeared before US Magistrate Judge Paul G. Levenson in Massachusetts. James faced US Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo in the Southern District of New York.

“As alleged in today’s indictment, the Peraire-Bueno brothers stole $25 million in Ethereum cryptocurrency through a technologically sophisticated, cutting-edge scheme they plotted for months and executed in seconds,” Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco told reporters at the time of their indictment.

Defense files other motions to scrap evidence

The Peraire-Bueno brothers also moved to exclude several other pieces of evidence. They asked the court to block prosecutors from introducing news articles that contain “inflammatory descriptions” of them as inadmissible hearsay.

Moreover, they sought to prevent the government from using a screenshot from X that allegedly shows a “false signature.” The screenshot was originally posted by pseudonymous Paradigm crypto researcher “Samczsun.” Defense attorneys are trying to convince the court that prosecutors cannot properly authenticate the image, and that they should admit it would be prejudicial.

If you're reading this, you’re already ahead. Stay there with our newsletter.