He's in prison. But they got the wrong guy.

Overview

The documentary presents Roman Sterlingov’s case as an example of the risks of relying on opaque, computer-generated evidence in criminal prosecutions. Sterlingov has spent more than five years in prison after being convicted in connection with Bitcoin Fog, a Bitcoin-mixing service that obscured transaction histories. He says he did not operate the service.

Sterlingov’s Background

Sterlingov recounts moving from Russia to Sweden as a teenager, struggling with depression and isolation, and finding community at gaming and Bitcoin meetups. He describes his early interest in Bitcoin as largely social and says he initially saw little need for privacy. He also recalls using privacy tools without expecting them to later be treated as evidence of criminal intent.

Before his arrest, Sterlingov was pursuing mental-health coaching and preparing to come to the United States for pilot training.

Evidence and Defense Arguments

Sterlingov’s attorney, Tor Eklund, says investigators found no direct evidence on Sterlingov’s devices or through surveillance proving that he operated Bitcoin Fog. According to Eklund, the prosecution relied heavily on blockchain analysis by Chainalysis. The film says that analysis linked Sterlingov to the service through a series of transactions traced back to an account for which he had provided identification.

Eklund argues that the attribution involved speculative steps and that the defense could not inspect Chainalysis’s proprietary software or obtain basic information about its error rates. The court nevertheless allowed the analysis, and the appeal was unsuccessful.

The defense also sought input from competing blockchain-analysis firm CipherTrace, which reportedly produced different results. Eklund says the firm’s representatives ultimately did not testify after its attorneys intervened shortly before trial.

The documentary further alleges that the prosecution showed jurors a cropped image said to be a text exchange from Sterlingov. The defense’s forensic expert identified it as an excerpt from an ebook. Eklund says an agent apologized, but the image had already been presented to the jury.

The Documentary’s Concerns

The film argues that privacy tools and technical hobbies were portrayed as suspicious, while transaction analysis and other circumstantial evidence were treated as proof of guilt. It frames the case as a warning about automated law enforcement, private forensic vendors, and the possibility that data taken out of context can be used to construct a misleading narrative.

These claims are presented by Sterlingov, his lawyer, and the documentary; the subtitles do not provide the prosecution’s response.

Personal Impact and Appeals

Sterlingov remains imprisoned and is pursuing further appeals, with a possible petition to the full appeals court and the Supreme Court. He speaks about the personal cost of incarceration, including separation from loved ones and the death of his stepfather while he was in jail.

He closes by encouraging people facing hardship to seek meaning, connection, and support. The film urges viewers to raise awareness of his case and points to FreeRoman.org.

Presenters and Contributors

• Naomi Brockwell — Presenter and interviewer
• Roman Sterlingov — Interviewee
• Tor Eklund — Sterlingov’s attorney