In a dramatic turn of events in a high-profile cryptocurrency fraud case, a mistrial has been declared for two MIT-educated brothers accused of orchestrating a $25 million heist on the Ethereum blockchain. Anton Peraire-Bueno and his brother James Peraire-Bueno, both in their 20s, faced charges stemming from an alleged scheme that exploited vulnerabilities in crypto trading mechanisms, leaving a jury deadlocked after days of intense deliberations marked by emotional strain.
The case, which unfolded in a federal courtroom in New York, centered on accusations that the brothers used sophisticated 'sandwich bots' to manipulate trades and siphon funds from unsuspecting Ethereum traders. According to prosecutors, the fraud occurred in a matter of seconds, highlighting the lightning-fast nature of digital asset exploits. The mistrial was announced on November 15, 2025, after jurors reported being unable to reach a unanimous verdict despite extended discussions.
Jurors described the deliberation process as grueling, with some complaining of tears and sleepless nights, as detailed in court documents reviewed by Business Insider. One anonymous juror reportedly told court officials that the emotional toll was overwhelming, saying the group was split along lines of interpreting the technical evidence. 'We argued for hours on end, and it just wore us down,' the juror was quoted as saying in a summary provided to the judge.
The brothers, graduates of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, were arrested in May 2024 following an investigation by the FBI and the Department of Justice. Prosecutors alleged that Anton and James Peraire-Bueno developed algorithms to front-run trades on the Ethereum network, effectively 'sandwiching' legitimate transactions between their own buys and sells to profit from price manipulations. This method, known in crypto circles as MEV (maximal extractable value) exploitation, reportedly netted them $25 million in just 12 seconds on April 3, 2024.
Defense attorneys for the Peraire-Bueno brothers argued that their clients' actions were not criminal but rather innovative trading strategies within the unregulated Wild West of cryptocurrency. 'This is not theft; it's smart coding in a system designed for it,' said lead defense lawyer Maria Gonzalez during closing arguments, according to transcripts from the trial. She emphasized that the brothers did not hack into systems but exploited publicly known flaws in Ethereum's transaction ordering.
The prosecution, led by Assistant U.S. Attorney David Ramirez, countered that the scheme constituted wire fraud and money laundering. 'They stole from everyday traders by rigging the game,' Ramirez stated in his opening remarks. Officials from the DOJ pointed to blockchain analysis that traced the funds to wallets controlled by the brothers, with forensic experts testifying that the operation involved setting up shell companies and using VPNs to obscure their identities.
Background on the case reveals a growing concern over crypto vulnerabilities. Ethereum, the second-largest blockchain by market cap, processes billions in daily transactions, but its decentralized nature leaves room for such exploits. Sandwich attacks, where bots insert transactions around a target's to capture arbitrage, have become increasingly common, costing traders millions annually, according to reports from blockchain security firm Chainalysis.
In this instance, the brothers allegedly targeted large pending trades, using their bots to buy low and sell high around them. 'It was blindingly fast fraud,' said cryptocurrency expert Dr. Elena Vasquez, a professor at Stanford University who has studied MEV, in an interview with Business Insider. She explained that while such practices are debated in the crypto community, crossing into outright manipulation can lead to federal charges.
The jury's deadlock came after 10 days of testimony and four days of deliberations. Court records indicate that jurors were evenly split, with some believing the evidence proved intent to defraud, while others saw it as aggressive but legal trading. 'There were tears shed over the moral questions,' one juror reportedly confided to the court bailiff, highlighting the human element in what was otherwise a highly technical case.
Following the mistrial declaration by U.S. District Judge Laura Simmons, prosecutors indicated they intend to retry the case. 'We remain committed to holding these individuals accountable,' said DOJ spokesperson Karen Lee in a statement released on November 16, 2025. The brothers, who have been out on bail since their arrest, face up to 20 years in prison if convicted on the charges.
The case has drawn attention from the tech and finance worlds, with MIT issuing a statement distancing itself from the brothers' alleged actions. 'While we are proud of our alumni, we do not condone any illegal activities,' said university president Dr. Robert Kline. Crypto advocates, meanwhile, argue that the prosecution sets a dangerous precedent for innovation in blockchain technology.
Critics of the crypto industry point to this incident as evidence of systemic risks. 'This heist underscores the need for better regulation,' said Senator Elizabeth Warren in a tweet following the mistrial news. On the other side, blockchain proponents like Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin have called for protocol upgrades to prevent such exploits, though he has not commented directly on this case.
As the legal proceedings gear up for a potential retrial, the broader implications for cryptocurrency regulation loom large. The SEC and CFTC have ramped up oversight of digital assets, with several similar cases pending. Experts predict that a conviction could lead to stricter rules on automated trading bots, potentially reshaping the $2 trillion crypto market.
In the meantime, the Peraire-Bueno brothers maintain their innocence. Through their legal team, they released a statement saying, 'We look forward to vindicating ourselves in the next trial.' The case continues to captivate, blending cutting-edge technology with age-old questions of fraud and justice.
With the mistrial, questions remain about jury selection and the complexity of explaining blockchain concepts to laypeople. Legal analysts suggest that future trials may incorporate more educational tools. As one observer noted, this saga is far from over, with potential appeals and regulatory fallout on the horizon.