Sterlingov Challenges Against Lengthy Sentence in Bitcoin Fog Case

Roman Sterlingov, the founder of the crypto mixer Bitcoin Fog, is challenging a potential 30-year prison sentence after being convicted on multiple money laundering charges. Sterlingov’s defense team argues that the recommended sentences of 30 years by the prosecution and 20 years by the Probation Office are excessive and unfair compared to similar cases.

The defense insists that such severe recommendations stem from the “cumulative effect” of various legal enhancements that address different aspects of the same conduct, namely, running a large-scale money laundering business.

In January of this year, Sterlingov was found guilty of running Bitcoin Fog, a site that allegedly facilitated the money laundering of more than $47 million. The government labeled him as an important player in a large conspiracy aimed at helping users disguise Bitcoin transactions and thus hinder the police identification of criminals associated with illicit activities such as drug dealing and cybercrime.

Sterlingov’s Sentencing Delayed for Forfeiture Hearings

Prosecutors also accused Sterlingov of using Bitcoin Fog, which he ran from 2011 to 2021, for money laundering of about 400 million dollars equivalent in Bitcoin associated with different crimes. The judge in the case, Judge Randolph Moss, had initially scheduled Sterlingov’s sentencing for August 21. However, the court will first address the government’s attempts at forfeiture, including 1,354 Bitcoins believed to have been inactive since 2012 and a possible $395 million civil forfeiture judgment.

According to Sterlingov’s attorneys, most of the case was circumstantial, stating that items such as the Bitcoin Fog server and private keys were never exhibited during the trial. The defense also emphasized that Sterlingov had no criminal record and stated that his role in Bitcoin Fog was less significant than depicted by prosecutors.

Regarding the guidelines for sentencing in the court, the defense claims that they are inapplicable because Sterlingov did not pocket the money and was not involved in the transactions. The court decision that will be made in this case will be of great importance for future cases similar to this one.