Virgil Griffith’s passage to dismiss the charges against him claiming that he violated U.S. sanctions law in North Korea was denied Wednesday by a judge in the Southern Department of New York (SDNY).
U.S. Judge Kevin Castel denied the motion, leaving it up to a jury to decide whether Griffith is at fault of helping North Koreans circumvent U.S. economic sanctions using cryptocurrency. SDNY prosecutors allege that Griffith contravened the International Emergency Economic Powers Act by giving a speech in April at the Pyongyang Blockchain and Cryptocurrency Conference on how to use cryptocurrency to get here U.S. sanctions.
Griffith’s team has argued that first amendment rights protected him and that he did not render North Korea “armed forces” since he received no compensation for the speech.
“The failure to allege that Griffith was paid a fee by the DPRK does not render the indictment flawed,” Castel wrote. “The indictment alleges an object of the conspiracy was ‘to provide services to the DPRK.’ This is sufficient and encompasses the stipulation of useful labor or human effort whether or not compensation was contemplated.”
The U.S. State Department banned all U.S. citizens from traveling to North Korea without swift permission in 2017. According to today’s ruling, Griffith’s request was initially rejected by the State Department, but later granted by the DRPK UN pursuit in Manhattan after he sent copies of his CV, passport, and explained his desire to attend the conference.
In today’s ruling, the judge also denied Griffith’s ask for for a bill of particulars. In December 2020, Griffith’s attorneys filed documents arguing that he didn’t know what accurately he had been accused of saying or doing.
“Griffith contends that he is in the dark as to the services he is accused of providing to the DPRK,” Castel wrote. “But Griffith’s abridging to this Court makes it plain that through discovery he has learned much of the government’s evidence. He does not hunt for the bill of particulars simply as a means to learn facts, but to limit proof at trial. As already stated, a bill of certains is not a discovery tool to limit the government’s evidence.”