A US judge declares a mistrial after a jury couldn't reach a verdict on two brothers charged in 2024 for allegedly stealing $25M in crypto from Ethereum traders
A jury was unable to reach a verdict in the fraud trial of two brothers, both recently graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology …
Context & Ripple Effects
The case began with the DOJ’s 2024 allegation that the two brothers exploited MEV-Boost software used by some Ethereum validators, described in the original $25M crypto-exploit indictment. The mistrial leaves that allegation unresolved rather than establishing a judicial conclusion about the conduct.
It arrives after a separate crypto-market case in which Avraham Eisenberg’s fraud and manipulation convictions were vacated for insufficient evidence. Together, the coverage highlights the difficulty of fitting contested on-chain trading and exploit conduct into conventional fraud theories.
First-order effects
- The defendants face no verdict from this trial, while prosecutors have not secured a conviction on the alleged $25M theft.
- Ethereum traders and validators connected to the alleged exploit receive no definitive court ruling on the conduct or the prosecution’s legal theory.
Second-order effects
- The outcome reinforces the evidentiary burden on prosecutors pursuing fraud charges over technical crypto-market behavior, especially where the alleged mechanism depends on validator or trading infrastructure.
- Market participants assessing risks around MEV-Boost and comparable validator workflows still lack a case-specific legal benchmark from this proceeding.
Third-order effects
- If hung juries and overturned verdicts recur in crypto-exploit cases, enforcement may increasingly hinge on whether prosecutors can translate protocol mechanics into clear evidence of deception or manipulation for lay juries.
- The broader structural issue is legal classification: courts are being asked to apply established fraud concepts to conduct shaped by decentralized market infrastructure, with outcomes likely to remain fact-specific.
The trend: Crypto enforcement is moving from headline-grabbing allegations toward harder courtroom tests of how technical on-chain conduct maps to traditional fraud law.