- Anton and James Peraire-Bueno have filed a motion to dismiss all counts against them, including a new charge under the National Stolen Property Act (NSPA)
- The brothers, accused of running a crypto trading scam, argue that cryptocurrency does not qualify as “property” under the NSPA and that its theft cannot legally support criminal charges
- The defense also claims the government’s theory is unprecedented and unconstitutional, citing vagueness and lack of fair notice
In a bold new filing, the defense team representing brothers Anton and James Peraire-Bueno has asked a federal judge to throw out the superseding indictment against them, arguing that the government’s novel application of theft laws to cryptocurrency is both legally flawed and unconstitutional. The case, already marked by its “first-of-its-kind” allegations related to blockchain transactions, now faces further scrutiny as defense attorneys claim the latest charge—conspiracy to receive stolen property—rests on unstable legal ground.
A First-of-Its-Kind Case Gets Even More Unusual
The Peraire-Buenos were first indicted in April 2024 in the Southern District of New York on charges of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering related to an alleged $25 million scheme involving crypto trading strategies. The government later added a fourth charge: conspiracy to receive stolen property under the NSPA (18 U.S.C. § 2315). According to the April 14, 2025 filing, the defense argues that this new charge should be dismissed for several independent reasons.
“The government’s choice to premise a criminal prosecution on that novel theory is surprising and fundamentally unjust,” the filing reads, asserting that no prior case has ever held that cryptocurrency qualifies as “property” under the NSPA.
“Cryptocurrency Is Not Property Under the NSPA”
The defendants argue that the cryptocurrency at issue does not fit any of the NSPA’s defined categories—“goods, wares, or merchandise, securities, or money.” Quoting United States v. Aleynikov, they contend that intangible digital assets fall outside the statute’s scope:
The theft and subsequent interstate transmission of purely intangible property is beyond the scope of the NSPA.
They further reject the idea that cryptocurrencies could be considered “securities,” pointing to ongoing legal ambiguity and conflicting civil rulings. “No court has ever held that cryptocurrency is a security under the NSPA,” the motion states, adding that even in civil contexts, courts remain “sharply divided” over applying the Howey test to crypto assets.
No Crossing State Lines = No Theft
The motion also challenges the indictment’s factual basis, arguing it fails to show the allegedly stolen crypto crossed state boundaries, as required by the statute, stating. “The Indictment alleges the theft of cryptocurrency but alleges no interstate transport of the cryptocurrency.” Moreover, they claim that the alleged victims voluntarily relinquished their assets in speculative trading maneuvers, undermining any suggestion of theft.
In their conclusion, the defense notes that recent DOJ and SEC policy shifts have abandoned aggressive attempts to classify cryptocurrency as regulated securities. “It would be unexpected, and fundamentally unfair, for the government to proceed with a criminal prosecution on a novel theory it has now disavowed in civil enforcement actions,” they write.
The motion to dismiss sets up a key test for how far existing federal statutes can stretch to cover new forms of digital property—and whether courts are ready to go along.
