Can a Google Search History Prove Criminal Intent in a $25M Crypto Heist?

Two Massachusetts Institute of Technology-educated brothers, Anton and James Peraire-Bueno, are seeking to exclude their post-crime Google search history as evidence in a federal trial related to a $25 million cryptocurrency heist. The defense argues that searches for terms such as “top crypto lawyers” and “wire fraud statute of limitations” were conducted during attorney consultations and should be protected by attorney-client privilege [2]. The searches occurred in April 2023, following the alleged exploitation of Ethereum’s MEV-boost system, which the prosecution has characterized as the first known manipulation of the platform [2].

According to court filings, the Peraire-Bueno brothers were arrested in May 2024 and charged with conspiracy, wire fraud, and money laundering. The case stems from an alleged 12-second blockchain heist, during which the defendants exploited their technical expertise to intercept private transactions and divert the funds. Prosecutors have emphasized the sophistication of the crime, citing the brothers' backgrounds in engineering and their deep understanding of blockchain technology [2]. The defense has countered that the post-crime searches reflect legal prudence rather than premeditated criminal intent and that no direct links have been established between the searches and the alleged crimes [3].

In a recent motion filed in Manhattan federal court, the defense highlighted the lack of contextual evidence linking the Google searches to the crime itself. They argue that without additional corroboration—such as witness testimony or direct communication logs—the searches cannot reliably demonstrate guilt or intent [3]. Legal experts have weighed in on the issue, with Alex Chandra, a partner at IGNOS Law Alliance, noting that post-conduct searches are generally weaker evidence compared to those conducted before the crime [3]. Chandra emphasized the importance of additional evidence to support the interpretation of search terms and warned against treating Google history as definitive proof of criminal intent.

The defense has also sought to exclude news articles and a Twitter screenshot from the trial on the grounds that they constitute hearsay and lack authenticity. The tweet, attributed to pseudonymous researcher Samczsun, allegedly includes a “false signature” related to the case but has not been independently verified [3]. The motion underscores the difficulty in authenticating digital content and stresses the importance of procedural integrity in evidence collection.

U.S. District Judge Jessica G.L. Clarke has yet to rule on the admissibility of the contested evidence. The case remains ongoing as the court evaluates the legal boundaries of using digital footprints—particularly Google search history—as a tool in criminal proceedings. If convicted, each defendant faces up to 20 years in prison per count, underscoring the high stakes of the trial. The outcome may influence future cases in which digital data plays a central role in determining criminal intent and behavior.

Source:

[1] Alleged Crypto Thieves Fight Use of Google Search History (https://www.law360.com/pulse/new-york-pulse/articles/2380518/alleged-crypto-thieves-fight-use-of-google-search-history)

[2] MIT brothers face charges over 12-second, $25M crypto heist (https://www.thestreet.com/crypto/markets/crypto-heist-that-lated-12-seconds-could-put-mit-brothers-in-jail)

[3] Brothers Seek to Block Google Search History in $25M ... (https://decrypt.co/336836/brothers-seek-block-google-searches-25m-crypto-heist-case?amp=1)