The case
Can circumstantial digital evidence identify the operator of a privacy service?
The government says Sterlingov operated Bitcoin Fog, a cryptocurrency mixer used to obscure the source and destination of bitcoin. The defense says the prosecution never produced a server, account, message, document, or device showing that he controlled the service—and that its attribution depended on disputed blockchain analysis, an old exchange transaction, and patterns of internet activity.
A person’s liberty should not depend on a proprietary black box no outsider can validate.
Blockchain tracing can generate investigative leads. It should not become unquestionable proof merely because a vendor calls its labels reliable. When the software has no stated error rate, no peer-reviewed validation, and no direct operational evidence confirms its attribution, the government’s burden should rise—not disappear behind technical complexity.
A jury convicted Sterlingov on four counts in March 2024. He received a 150-month prison sentence in November 2024. His appeal was argued before the D.C. Circuit on May 12, 2026.
Prosecutors say Sterlingov created and operated Bitcoin Fog, which processed funds tied to darknet markets and other crimes, and that financial and digital evidence connected him to the service. The trial court admitted the government’s blockchain-analysis evidence as reliable.
Sterlingov maintains his innocence. His lawyers and a technical amicus argue that the case lacked direct evidence of operation and that the address cluster attributed to Bitcoin Fog was never validated with a known error rate or peer-reviewed method.
Editorial note: This is defense-centered advocacy, not neutral case reporting. Government allegations, the trial court’s evidentiary ruling, court outcomes, defense arguments, independent technical criticism, and personal testimony are labeled separately.