Let's Play Devil's Advocate -- How Would a Mass Buyer Bust Go Down?

I know most people here, including me, believe that LE will leave small time buyers alone. But I've always thought that the DEA might pull a big one-time operation that arrests a lot of buyers, then release a big press release about it, like Operations Web Tryp and Log Jam. Playing Devil's Advocate from the DEA's point of view, look at it this way: a lot of users of the DNM are "respectable" professionals with kids and good jobs, people that would never venture in to the badlands of Baltimore or Newark to try heroin. A big wave of arrests of buyers would have a lot of people think twice about using the DNM's, and greatly cut down on traffic.

Now, my question is, how would they do that? Do you think they'd arrest a few vendors, seize their customer lists, and pay visits to a hundred or so people on the lists who've ordered a few times? Or could this never happen, due to plausible deniability?

Thoughts?


Comments


[7 Points] hugsfordrugs:

Plausible deniability would kill the chances of arrests based solely from customer lists. As it is repeated around here all the time, anyone can order drugs to anyone else's house under their name. There has to be some other evidence to accompany the list, such as a CD or possibly a trail connecting your money to the BTC used to make the purchase. Fortunately, both of these other forms of evidence have lots of escape routes.

CD: Should almost always be obvious. Look at the package and if it's not anything else that you have bought legally, like shit from Amazon or whatnot, you should know it's from the DarkNet vendor and you shouldn't sign for it. No signature, no arrest.

Money trail: This one is even harder. LE would have to follow the blockchain to the source of the BTC purchases, which becomes extremely complicated when you add in the tumbling systems, anonymous ways of buying BTC, etc. Not easy at all and I don't believe there has been a precedent for this being used yet.


[8 Points] None:

I still just don't believe someone getting drugs in the mail can successfully claim they have plausible deniability. People may or may not send drugs to other people's homes as drop addresses but you need to convince a jury of that, not the arresting officer.

The officers have to decide of they have proof to arrest, (finding drugs in your house is enough, box or no, I am positive) the DA has to decide if they have enough evidence to charge (and having drugs in your house is quite likely enough on its own, CD or not,) but a jury is who is ultimately responsible for believing your story about "not mine."

I just said this elsewhere, but I really and truly don't believe the conventional wisdom of feeling safe because we didn't sign is right. And I don't believe they will normally bother with a CD if they already believe you're doing to pick up a box from your mailbox. It behooves them to allow you time to feel comfortable that you're in the clear, and go about whatever your plans were. If they already know what's in the box (like they would in a CD,) I just don't imagine they care how they get it into your house. I really, really believe it being in your house is what ultimately matters. I think the stories about CD serve to make us less cautious, not more.


[3 Points] None:

[deleted]


[3 Points] omapuppet:

Would it be legal for LE to bust a supplier and take over his operation, carrying on mailing out the ordered drugs, while keeping records about what goes where? They could identify addresses where they are getting reorders, then go bust those people and use their lying cop tactics to get confessions or whatever they need to bust these 'respectable' types.

It would probably be expensive on quantity of drugs or people basis, but like OP said, the cooling effect that the news of darknet buyers getting busted would have would be significant.


[2 Points] Big_Daddy_Trucknutz:

Personal use buyers don't make very good targets for LEO. They don't get the "drugs on the table" they want, there's probably not much of value (if anything) for them to seize and it's hard to make armed officers busting people's doors in for mostly harmless crimes seem like a good use of money.


[2 Points] Stizy:

That is exactly what i thought, take down a bunch of vendors. Take over their operation until they had a nice sized address list of buyers and then go and bust them all. Depending on the buyer they bust they may only need one. If their OpSec sucks then one vendor could give them 1000 names. But...they don't normally go after buyers. It costs way too much to set up the bust for what people are buying. Maybe going after the people buying kilos and pounds but not most buyers are getting that, most people are buying a gram here and there. Do you think the DEA is going to drop 100,000 dollars on a few grams? Hell no, they wouldn't even get up to bust the pot stores in california which were right there in day light and against federal law.


[1 Points] Bagnag:

If they got a list of a vendor's addresses and names, they could monitor all those addresses. Wait till they order again from a darknetmarket (keeping their address on watch, checking packages) and bust them on that.


[1 Points] al_eberia:

It would probably go down very similar to the blackshades malware bust that just occurred. If they busted a significant bulk vendor and found that he had kept a database of buyers they would establish a global operation and coordinate with local police forces to arrest everyone over the course of a day or two.


[1 Points] thenine9:

One vendor in the USA would get caught, likely through how they send their packages or how they receive their goods. They would be turned over and would continue operating as a vendor but on the states side.

I doubt there is a single federal agency that wouldn't do this with a vendor if they could, we've already seen it with nod. Once they have a running vendor they would then collect addresses of buyers and then reach out to other vendors and try to catch them (perhaps by suggesting to send them some free product to resell).

If they can plot the organization, then you have a conspiracy charge - which means everyone is double-fucked. This is why you need to stay away from vendors with poor OPSEC and vendors who themselves are likely ordering from DNMs with poor OPSEC.


[1 Points] None:

Hmmm? It would be have to be run by the Feds for jurisdiction reasons. The best bet would be to set up a fake seller as a sting. Buyer would give Feds address. Feds would have to coordinate with USPS (not difficult) and local authorities.

Cause to serve a warrant? Tricky, technically no. However, but technically is not in LEO's vocabulary. LEO would push the issue for a warrant because technically it would be up to the judge and DA to review the constitutional merits of the court order. Judges and DA come in all shapes and sizes; that is a wild card roll of the dice.

Buyers attorney will bring up the technical merits and if the buyer said nothing it might not be that expensive for the buyer. (yes, multiple repost of video) Provided buyer is a upstanding, red blooded, tax paying American who is without a previous criminal record. And was only buying personal amounts not scary drugs (no heroin, rohypnol, etc). The buyer would be looking at a slap on the wrist, probation, fine, or some attorney negated deal (community service, N.A. meetings)

Criminal Record, Probation/Parol violation, 3 oz. of uncut heroin? Buyer better be independently wealthy.

TL;DR What LEO can Technically do means nothing. If arrested- say NOTHING! Let the lawyers deal with it.


[1 Points] dbdru1:

In Australia any package delivered to your home no matter whose name is on it is considered to be your property and you are therefore liable for its contents. This is not to say that plausible deniability may not work but it gives the cops a strong reason to take it to court. All the more reason to make sure that nothing incriminating is in your home.


[0 Points] Cixylsyd:

Yeah, what you posted is essentially what would happen. It would start with some intelligence gathering, going around on the forums to see which vendors were putting out a lot of weight and make a hierarchy of the big and small names in the trade. It's implausible to get them through breaking the encryption, so they'd likely set up buyer accounts and place a few orders so they could map out which region the mail was coming from and work with the postal service to trace it to the origin post office. This can be delayed if the vendor is smart enough to use different zip codes when shipping. But after they traced some vendors down they'd arrest them and seize their account. They might not be able to break the encryption on the vendors' client list but that relies on the vendor not giving them the password as part of a deal. The real danger is for any new clients; They can use an account with a good reputation to snare up lots of new or returning buyers who don't know better before people start to notice something's up or word gets out. My guess is they'd probably prioritize large order buyers over small scale buyers, because the logic is that if someone is buying say an ounce of coke every week chances are they're flipping it for a profit somewhere else which leads to even more busts.


[0 Points] autopornbot:

This wouldn't happen because the resources it would take. They have to do a controlled delivery, and that doesn't make any sense for a misdemeanor, especially when there's a decent chance the suspect could get out of it, or just not accept the package or admit to knowing/ordering.


[0 Points] JoeMammavich:

They will learn all of our identities and turn over to DHS labeled as domestic terrorists with shoot on site orders. We all fucked!!!