MEV bot trial ends in mistrial after jury deadlock on brothers’ verdict
A federal jury in Manhattan failed to reach a verdict in the high-profile case of brothers Anton and James Peraire-Bueno, prompting U.S. District Judge Jessica G.L. Clarke to declare a mistrial. The case centered on allegations that the pair exploited Ethereum transactions using a so-called “MEV bot” to capture $25 million in profits.
After three weeks of testimony, jurors remained divided on whether the brothers’ actions amounted to wire fraud or represented a legitimate on-chain trading strategy within the current regulatory framework. The deadlock highlights the growing legal uncertainty surrounding blockchain-based arbitrage tactics and how traditional financial laws apply to decentralized markets. Prosecutors have not yet indicated whether they will seek a retrial.
Background on the case
Prosecutors charged the MIT-educated brothers with conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy to commit money laundering over a 2023 incident that moved roughly $25 million in digital assets in about 12 seconds. The government alleged the pair manipulated transaction ordering to extract value from pending trades; the defense argued the conduct did not meet the elements of fraud.
What the mistrial means for crypto
The deadlock doesn’t resolve whether certain maximal extractable value (MEV) tactics constitute criminal fraud. Instead, it resets the case’s timeline and extends uncertainty for validators, searchers, and traders who rely on transaction ordering incentives. Prosecutors can retry the case, seek a plea, or narrow theories; defense counsel can push for dismissal or renewed motions. Industry groups say the stakes are high for defining legal boundaries around MEV-related activity.
Coin Center’s intervention
Earlier this week, crypto policy nonprofit Coin Center filed an amicus brief disputing the government’s “honest validator” fraud theory, arguing it isn’t a recognized legal duty and risks criminalizing technical behavior without clear notice. The brief asks the court to reject instructions that hinge liability on that concept.
Charges and potential penalties
According to the Justice Department, each count conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy to commit money laundering carries a statutory maximum of 20 years’ imprisonment, though any sentence would be determined by a judge if there were a conviction. The indictment, unsealed in May 2024, describes months of planning and post-exploit obfuscation. Department of Justice
Where the legal debate sits now
At trial, prosecutors framed the conduct as a “bait and switch” that deceived market participants. Defense counsel likened the actions to aggressive but permitted tactics within adversarial blockchain markets. With the mistrial, those competing narratives remain unresolved and regulators, exchanges, and validators lack fresh precedent on when MEV behavior crosses into criminal fraud.
What industry participants should watch next (analysis)
Key signals will include whether prosecutors retry the case with the same theory or refine it; whether the court narrows jury instructions around duties owed by validators; and how exchanges/validators adjust MEV-related policies or disclosures. Parallel civil litigation or enforcement (e.g., from the SEC or CFTC) could also influence industry practices independent of criminal outcomes. (This section is labeled analysis.)
What’s next in the MEV bot trial mistrial
The court could schedule a new trial, accept motions that reshape the case, or the parties could pursue resolution. Until then, firms should focus on documented controls for transaction ordering, risk disclosures, and monitoring for MEV-related edge cases that could be construed as deceptive patterns.
Conclusion
The mistrial extends uncertainty over how U.S. law defines and regulates aggressive MEV strategies on public blockchains. The unresolved case leaves open questions about the legal limits of validator behavior and profit-seeking in decentralized systems.
A potential retrial or key pre-trial rulings could help determine whether theories like the “honest validator” duty can support criminal fraud charges. Alternatively, the outcome may suggest that industry norms, self-regulation, or civil litigation not criminal prosecution will ultimately shape the boundaries of acceptable MEV activity in the evolving crypto ecosystem.
FAQs
Q : What is an MEV attack?
A : It’s profit extracted by controlling or influencing transaction ordering in a block, often through front-running or sandwiching.
Q : Did the court find the brothers guilty?
A : No. The jury deadlocked, and the judge declared a mistrial.
Q : What happens after a mistrial?
A : Prosecutors can retry the case, negotiate a plea, or drop charges; the court may also hear new motions.
Q : Why is Coin Center involved?
A : It filed an amicus brief arguing the “honest validator” theory isn’t a recognized legal duty and could criminalize technical behavior.
Q : What were the charges?
A : Conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy to commit money laundering.
Q : Does this set a precedent?
A : No. A mistrial doesn’t create precedent; future rulings or a retrial would be needed.
Q : Is the “MEV bot trial mistrial” likely to change Ethereum rules?
A : Not directly; any change would come from protocol governance or policy actions, not from a mistrial alone.
Facts
Event
Jury deadlock leads to mistrial in federal MEV bot caseDate/Time
2025-11-08T20:00:00+05:00Entities
United States v. Anton Peraire-Bueno; United States v. James Peraire-Bueno; U.S. District Judge Jessica G.L. Clarke; Coin CenterFigures
~$25 million in digital assets; ~12-second exploit; counts carry up to 20 years each (statutory maximums)Quotes
“Bait and switch is not a trading strategy.” Prosecutors’ closing argument, per courtroom reportingSources
Yahoo Finance (mistrial report), Cointelegraph (report); DOJ press release (charges); Coin Center (amicus brief). Coin Center+3Yahoo Finance+3TradingView+3