You can look through the indictment yourself - https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/media/1388036/dl?inline
Among other bits:
> MEDJEDOVIC understood that his conduct circumvented the intended functioning [...] MEDJEDOVIC discussed a plan to "steal crypto," referred to the exploit as involving "glitch" and "fake" liquidity, and described the code for the exploit as a "rape."
> MEDJEDOVIC also prepared a "POST-EXPLOITATION" plan for himself, which included, among other things, "KEEP the configs Burn the evidence, including the histfile" and "Book flight to: Pack Bags," as well as another file labeled "Decisions and Mistakes," in which he wrote, "Going On the run / Yes / Chance of getting caught<Payoff for not getting caught"
> Immediately after obtaining the flash loan, MEDJEDOVIC wrote "Raping Now" in the public event long for the transaction.
There's extremely strong evidence that he believes he's committing a crime, and specifically "steal[ing] crypto" in his own words, so yes. And when you have records effectively saying "I believe I am committing a crime", it becomes a lot easier to convince a jury you committed a crime.
Thanks for this; so we have: wire fraud, money laundering, and an interesting charge “unauthorized damage to a protected computer“ that sees the Ethereum EVM as a distributed computer…
Yeah, this one is very interesting; the charge is for "intentionally caus[ing] damage without authorization to one or more protected computers, including the Ethereum Virual Machine (EVM), which was implemented through, among other nodes, a full Ethereum node running in the Eastern District of New York."
This seems ambitious. The implications seem quite dire; if I'm running a full Ethereum node do I have the ability to say which smart contracts are "authorized" to execute on my implementation of the EVM? If I see a smart contract do a trade I don't like, is someone committing a crime against me? I don't think this will stick if Medjedovic ever goes to court.