Judge sets Oct 2025 trial for brothers allegedly behind $25M exploit

Shortly after their arrest in May, Anton and James Peraire-Bueno were released on $250,000 bonds until the conclusion of their criminal case.

A federal judge has set the start date for the criminal trial of two brothers allegedly responsible for stealing $25 million in crypto by exploiting maximal extractable value (MEV) bots.

In an Aug. 19 hearing in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Judge Jessica Clarke ordered that Anton Peraire-Bueno and James Pepaire-Bueno would stand trial on Oct. 14, 2025, for conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Justice Department officials alleged the brothers fraudulently obtained $25 million worth of crypto “within approximately 12 seconds” using a scheme that “calls the very integrity of the blockchain into question.”

The alleged exploit of the Ethereum blockchain involved manipulating MEV bots using a series of test transactions that allowed them to steal crypto from a proposed block. US authorities arrested the Peraire-Bueno brothers in May, and they are now each free on a $250,000 bond in addition to certain travel limitations.

Related: How the Peraire-Bueno brothers allegedly drained $25M from their MEV bots exploit

According to US authorities, the brothers rejected requests to return the stolen funds and hid the assets using shell companies and foreign crypto exchanges, transferring them to several wallets. If convicted, they could face up to 20 years in prison for each count.

In the last 12 months, several high-profile figures in the crypto industry have gone to prison following criminal trials or plea deals with prosecutors. Former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried is serving a 25-year sentence for misusing customer funds and related charges, and former Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao is serving a four-month sentence following a guilty plea on one felony count.

Magazine: Decade after Ethereum ICO: Blockchain forensics end double-spending debate