Key Highlights
- Defense opposed DOJ’s request to take an out-of-country deposition of Ethereum researcher Justin Drake.
- The filing argues the court should first rule on the pending Rule 29 motion for acquittal.
- The case stems from an alleged $25M Ethereum exploit by the Peraire-Bueno brothers that previously ended in a mistrial.
Defense attorneys for brothers Anton and James Peraire-Bueno have asked a federal court to reject a request by U.S. prosecutors to take an out-of-country deposition from Ethereum researcher Justin Drake.
In the eight-page filing, dated March 5, 2026, the defense challenged the request submitted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. Prosecutors are seeking to depose Drake as they prepare for the possibility of a retrial in the case.
The defense argued that the government’s request is premature and should not be considered until the court rules on their pending Rule 29 motion seeking a judgment of acquittal following the earlier mistrial in the case.
Background of the case
Anton Peraire-Bueno, 24, and James Peraire-Bueno, 28, were charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. According to federal prosecutors, the brothers carried out a technologically sophisticated scheme that exploited the Ethereum blockchain to obtain approximately $25 million worth of cryptocurrency in about 12 seconds.
The indictment alleges that the defendants manipulated the process through which transactions are validated and added to the Ethereum blockchain. By doing so, prosecutors say the brothers gained access to pending private transactions and altered them in a way that allowed them to divert funds belonging to cryptocurrency traders.
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) described the operation as a “first-of-its-kind” scheme involving the manipulation of blockchain transaction processes.
“As alleged in today’s indictment, the Peraire-Bueno brothers stole $25 million in Ethereum cryptocurrency through a technologically sophisticated, cutting-edge scheme they plotted for months and executed in seconds,” said Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco when the charges were announced.
Authorities said the alleged exploit was carefully planned over several months. Prosecutors claim the brothers studied the trading behavior of targeted traders, created shell companies, and used multiple cryptocurrency wallets and foreign exchanges in an effort to conceal the source of the funds after the theft.
Investigators from the IRS Criminal Investigation Cyber Unit led the financial investigation. “These brothers allegedly committed a first-of-its-kind manipulation of the Ethereum blockchain by fraudulently gaining access to pending transactions, altering the movement of the electronic currency, and ultimately stealing $25 million in cryptocurrency from their victims,” said Thomas Fattorusso, Special Agent in Charge of IRS-CI’s New York Field Office.
Mistrial after Jury deadlock
The case previously went to trial in November 2025. Jury deliberations extended late into the evening on November 7, when jurors informed the court that they were struggling and had made no meaningful progress toward a verdict.
U.S. District Judge Jessica Clarke ultimately declared a mistrial that evening after the jury reported being deadlocked.
Following the mistrial, prosecutors moved to schedule a retrial as early as February 2026. Defense lawyers responded that setting a date so quickly was unnecessary and suggested that, if required, a retrial should take place no earlier than late April 2026.
Additional legal disputes
The case has since seen several procedural filings. In November, prosecutors requested that time under the Speedy Trial Act be excluded through February 26. Around the same time, dozens of organizations signed a letter opposing the retrial.
Later, the U.S. Attorney’s Office also filed a motion opposing a proposed amicus brief from the DeFi Education Fund.
The latest dispute centers on whether prosecutors can take testimony from Justin Drake, a well-known Ethereum researcher, outside the United States before the court decides the defense’s Rule 29 motion.
Defense lawyers argue that allowing such steps toward a retrial before the court rules on the motion is inappropriate.
Potential penalties
If convicted, both Anton and James Peraire-Bueno face significant prison time. Each count of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison.
The case remains pending before the Southern District of New York, where the court must first rule on the defense’s motion before determining how the case will proceed.
Also Read: Court Rules Uniswap Not Responsible for ‘Rug Pull’ Losses
