Virgil Griffith's motion to dismiss allegations that he violated US sanctions law in North Korea was rejected last week by a New York Southern District (SDNY) judge.
Virgil Griffith's legal battle continues
US judge Kevin Castel rejected the motion, so a jury will decide whether or not Griffith is guilty of helping North Koreans evade US economic sanctions using cryptocurrency.
SDNY prosecutors claim Griffith violated the International Emergency Economic Powers Act by delivering a speech at the Pyongyang Blockchain and Cryptocurrency Conference in April on how to use cryptocurrency to circumvent U.S. sanctions buy Bitcoins and other cryptos).
Griffith's defense team argued that his First Amendment rights under the United States Constitution protected him and that he did not do North Korea any "service" because he received no compensation for the speech.
"Failure to claim that Griffith was paid by North Korea does not make the charge flawed," Castel wrote. “The prosecution claims that one object of the conspiracy was to“ provide services to the DPRK ”. This is sufficient and includes the provision of useful work or human commitment, regardless of whether or not compensation was contemplated ”.
Griffith claims he is totally unrelated to the allegations
The US State Department banned all US citizens from traveling to North Korea without express permission in 2017. According to the judge's ruling, Griffith's request was initially rejected by the State Department but was later accepted by the US State Department. UN DRPK mission in Manhattan after sending a copy of his CV, passport and explaining his desire to attend the conference.
In his ruling, the judge also denied Griffith's request for knowledge of specific details regarding his legal case. In December 2020, Griffith's lawyers filed a series of documents alleging that he did not know exactly what he was accused of saying or doing.
"Griffith claims he is unaware of anything about the services he is accused of providing to the DPRK," Castel wrote. “But Griffith's briefing to this court makes it clear that through the request he learned a lot of the government evidence.
He does not seek the bill of particulars simply as a means of learning the facts, but to limit the evidence to trial. As already stated, a request for knowledge is not a tool for uncovering and limiting government evidence ”.
