Suspect in NYC crypto kidnapping, torture case allegedly involved his assistant: DA
John Woeltz, along with fellow suspect William Duplessie, were granted $1 million bail this week by Judge Gregory Carro as review of the case's evidence continues. The decision was made against over the objection of the DA's office.
Prosecutors said on Thursday Woeltz allegedly instructed the assistant to monitor the alleged victim whenever he used his phone.
MORE: Suspects in New York City crypto torture case plead not guilty to kidnapping and assault
When the assistant expressed concern the victim might have left the townhouse through an open door a second assistant replied, "Don't worry I'm watching him," prosecutors said.
Prosecutors disclosed the information as attorneys for Woeltz and William Duplessie argue they did not hold the Italian man against his will.
A message from Duplessie said he and Woeltz had to keep doing drugs because they were making the alleged victim do drugs, prosecutors said. Other messages described the alleged victim as broken, sobbing, with "no more life in his eyes," according to the prosecutors.
In addition, they said physical evidence recovered from the scene corroborates allegations Woeltz and Duplessie subjected the alleged victim to torture, including a loaded firearm, chainsaw and cattle prod.
Hacksaws, buckets, tarps and goggles were also found, with prosecutors saying the defendants threatened to use to dispose of the alleged victim's body. They are also accused of pouring tequila on the alleged victim and lighting him on fire.
MORE: What we know about the NYC crypto kidnapping and torture case
Prosecutors have said Woeltz and Duplessie lured the alleged victim -- an Italian man who is not identified in the indictment -- to New York by allegedly threatening to have his family killed.
Woeltz and Duplessie allegedly told the Italian man that they were associated with the government and if he didn't cooperate, he would be labeled a terrorist, prosecutors said.
The man told police he arrived in New York on May 6 and went to Woeltz's eight-bedroom SoHo townhouse, where he was allegedly tortured over his Bitcoin password, according to a complaint.
After more than two weeks, police said the man escaped from the townhouse on May 23 and ran to a traffic enforcement officer for help. Woeltz and Duplessie were subsequently arrested.
Before being granted bail on Wednesay, Woeltz and Duplessie have remained in custody since their arrest in May. They both pleaded not guilty to a dozen charges, including kidnapping, assault and coercion, during their arraignment last month.
Both men must surrender passports, submit to electronic monitoring and remain on home confinement.
During the arraignment, the defense pushed back against the allegations, saying there is video of the alleged victim "having the time of his life" and engaging in activity at odds with having been tortured.
A prosecutor, Sarah Kahn, said in response that "victims of abuse are not always going to act in a way that we expect people to do."
Kahn also said prosecutors have had conversations with other, unnamed law enforcement agencies that indicated Woeltz and Duplessie have tortured people before.
Prosecutors at Wednesday's hearing brought up a law enforcement search of a property in Kentucky linked to Woeltz, who is known as the "crypto king of Kentucky," that they said turned up writings indicating that Woeltz had mused about holding people to steal their cryptocurrency.
Duplessie was previously investigated in Switzerland for domestic violence and Woeltz has previously been accused of holding a different individual in Kentucky for crypto ransom.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business of Fashion
a day ago
- Business of Fashion
Are Luxury Brands Responsible for What Happens in Their Supply Chains?
Until the end of 2023, Z Production, a leather goods factory located in an industrial suburb of Florence, made bags and backpacks for Richemont-owned luxury pen and leather goods maker Montblanc. The items were made by workers who earned as little as $3 an hour, working 12 hours a day, six days a week, according to local union Sudd Cobas, which led a months-long campaign of strikes that succeeded in securing better hours and wages at the factory for its members in early 2023. Within weeks of the agreement, Richemont's local manufacturing unit announced plans to terminate its contract with Z Production, pointing to consistent infractions against its code of conduct. Sudd Cobas alleges the move amounted to a form of union busting and ultimately led to the dismissal of six of its members in October last year. Now it is helping the workers take the Richemont unit to court, hoping to hold the luxury giant legally accountable for damages to workers in its supply chain. Montblanc contests the claims laid out in the case and is separately suing the union for defamation. The company said the manufacturing unit ended its relationship with Z Production after audits turned up persistent issues, including a case of unauthorised subcontracting. Any dismissals took place months after its contract with the supplier ended and its inspections uncovered no evidence of the kinds of labour abuses alleged by Sudd Cobas, it added. 'We categorically reject these unfounded and defamatory accusations,' Montblanc said in an emailed statement. 'The termination of the supply relationship with Z Production has, for months, been extensively exploited… based on numerous inaccuracies, falsehoods and conjectures.' The litigation is the latest move in a high-stakes debate over how much responsibility big brands should have for what happens in their supply chains. With the case, Sudd Cobas is aiming to set a new legal precedent in Italy, where roughly half of the world's luxury goods are made. If successful, 'the ruling could represent a turning point for thousands of exploited workers across the 'Made in Italy' supply chains,' Sudd Cobas said in a press release it jointly issued with Abiti Puliti, the Italian branch of labour rights campaign group Clean Clothes Campaign, earlier this month. 'It would be the first time a fashion brand is held directly responsible for working conditions within its supply chain.' Limited Liability Business Models Most fashion companies — even high-end, luxury labels — don't make their own products. Instead they outsource production to a complex and often opaque network of third-party suppliers. That means they don't have direct control, or even real visibility, over working conditions. Critics argue it also allows them to sidestep legal liability when things go wrong. Labour rights advocates have pushed against this framing for decades, campaigning to bring more accountability to a system that they argue is deeply flawed and ultimately exists to boost the profits of big, multinational corporations. It's the constant pressure big brands place on manufacturers with much tighter margins to provide cheaper, faster, more flexible production that ultimately leads to cut corners and labour exploitation, they say. Brands use 'these subcontracting companies to save money on production,' said Francesca Ciuffi, an organiser with the Sudd Cobas union. 'They externalise everything.' Regulators have flip flopped on the issue. Over the last decade governments around the world have introduced a number of policies that require companies to get a better handle on where and how their products are made, often in response to scandals like the Rana Plaza disaster in Bangladesh and an alleged government-backed scheme of forced labour in China's cotton-producing region of Xinjiang. But often these measures have lacked teeth or been weakly enforced. Shifting political winds mean some of the most progressive rules on the table now look likely to get drastically pushed back. Litigation is seen by labour and human rights advocates as one tool to help shift the paradigm, moving the pressure on brands from one of moral accountability that impacts their reputations to one of concrete, legal consequence. Climate and human rights cases against big companies have increased alongside regulatory changes and growing investor engagement with environmental, social and governance issues. Often such cases take years and may not result in a straight win for either party. But the attention they bring to the issues and even incremental changes to the way the law is applied can make a significant difference, advocates say. 'These cases are very robustly fought by brands. Very rarely do they resolve quickly, they're always heavily contested,' said Oliver Holland, a partner at UK-based law firm Leigh Day who specialises in corporate accountability litigation. 'As cases become more common won't take as long and won't be as difficult.' Luxury Exceptionalism The case supported by Sudd Cobas comes as luxury's supply chains are facing unprecedented scrutiny. For decades, the sector has tried to pass off reports of labour abuses in apparel and leather goods factories as a fast-fashion problem, isolated to far-flung manufacturing hubs with weak worker protections. Steep prices and 'Made in Italy' labels are wielded as tools in this narrative, designed to signal to consumers that luxury products were made in tightly regulated labour markets by well-paid and highly skilled artisans. And previous scandals largely came and went, without damaging brands. But over the last 18 months, an ongoing investigation into labour exploitation in fashion workshops near Milan has exposed major issues at many of luxury's most established brands. Regional prosecutors have linked companies including Dior, Armani, Valentino and Loro Piana to local sweatshops. (The brands say that they are committed to upholding high ethical standards and the incidents don't reflect the way they operate). The scandal has proved reputationally bruising. And it's landed at a particularly unhelpful moment, when luxury's biggest players are already grappling with a downturn in consumer spending, linked in part to growing criticism of declining quality and rising prices playing out in viral posts on social media platforms. Still, the material impact has thus far been limited, While the court in Milan has been critical, arguing that luxury's links to sweatshops are the result of an entrenched operating model that ignores labour risks in order to maximise profits, sanctions against brands have focused on alleged failings in their monitoring systems and have not held them legally responsible for the way workers were treated at suppliers and subcontractors. Political efforts to address the issues have focused on developing certification programmes companies can use to prevent exposure to illicit actors. A new scheme in Milan aims to establish a database of 'good' suppliers, based on voluntary disclosures and participation. Last week, Italy's Ministry of Enterprise and Made in Italy announced plans to introduce a new law that would ensure the sustainability and legality of companies operating in the sector. Its aim is 'to combat the illicit labour practices of a few, which can compromise the reputation of the entire sector,' the ministry said in a statement, adding that the law would protect brands that have carried out preventative checks on their suppliers from liability. Critics argue such measures fail to address the underlying business practices that they say ultimately lead to exploitation. 'Brand reputations are safeguarded — not workers' rights — by the ethical codes published on corporate websites and the so-called system of 'audits,'' Sudd Cobas and Abiti Puliti said in their statement earlier this month. 'The conflict of interest is clear, and it offers no real accountability to those employed along the production chains.' Who Pays? With the case in Tuscany, Sudd Cobas is seeking to shift this paradigm. According to the argument put forward by the workers' lawyers, Richemont's local subsidiary was Z Production's only client and had active involvement in its day-to-day operations. The factory was in effect an 'empty vessel' for Richemont's Montblanc manufacturing business, making the luxury giant the ultimate responsible employer, the case claims. It alleges the Richemont unit cancelled its contract with Z Production because output dropped after working hours were regularised for union members. The lawsuit seeks to restore jobs and secure at least five months' salary as compensation for the six plaintiffs, who it claims ultimately lost their jobs as a result of the luxury company's actions. Montblanc said the case mischaracterises its manufacturing division's relationship with Z Production and that the six workers involved in the case were dismissed 18 months after the unit announced plans to terminate its contract, and 10 months after it stopped working with the supplier. Its decision to end the relationship was made after audits turned up 'persistent incidents of non-compliance' with the company's code of conduct, including unauthorised subcontracting, Montblanc said, adding that neither its own inspections, nor a third-party forensic audit conducted in early 2023 found evidence of working conditions like those alleged by Sudd Cobas. A judge in Florence's labour court consented to hear arguments in July. The next court date is set for December. Simone Stern Carbone contributed to this story.
CBS News
a day ago
- CBS News
Suspect in NYC crypto kidnapping case released on $1 million bond
A crypto investor charged with kidnapping an Italian man in a Manhattan townhouse for days in order to steal his Bitcoin was released Thursday on $1 million bond, according to prosecutors. John Woeltz was fitted with an electronic monitor and ordered to home confinement during an appearance in Manhattan criminal court, said Rachel Best, a spokesperson for the Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office. He also had to surrender his passport and agreed to leave his apartment only for emergencies, doctor appointments and court appearances, she said. Bragg's office had opposed the bail request, saying he has the means to flee, including a private jet and a helicopter. Woeltz's co-defendant, William Duplessie, remains in custody. Their next court date is in October, according to Best. The two men have pleaded not guilty to charges of kidnapping, assault, unlawful imprisonment and criminal possession of a weapon. Authorities have not identified the victim. Prosecutors say that on May 6, Woeltz and Duplessie lured the man to a townhouse in Manhattan's posh SoHo neighborhood by threatening to kill his family. Then, they tormented him with electrical wires, forced him to smoke from a crack pipe and at one point dangled him from a staircase five stories high, prosecutors said. The man said he eventually agreed to hand over his computer password, then managed to flee after 17 days of captivity. When his captors went to retrieve the device, he ran barefoot and bloodied to the nearest police officer. Woeltz's lawyer declined to comment other than to confirm his client's release Thursday. A lawyer for Duplessie didn't immediately respond to an email seeking comment. The lawyers have previously argued that photos and videos show the accuser participated willingly in group sex, drug use and other activities and was able to come and go freely from the SoHo house.
Fox News
a day ago
- Fox News
Alleged bitcoin torturer walks free on $1M bond after two-month Rikers Island detention
One of two suspects accused of torturing an Italian millionaire in a New York City apartment over his refusal to disclose his bitcoin password, reportedly worth $100 million, was sprung from jail after spending two months in custody. John Woeltz, 37, was released from Rikers Island on $1 million bond, the New York Post reported. The release came a week after a Manhattan judge granted bond for Woeltz and his alleged accomplice, 33-year-old William Duplessie. Both men are accused of kidnapping and torturing Italian crypto trader Michael Valentino Teofrasto Carturan. Defense attorneys argued the alleged torture was akin to "fraternity-like hazing." "Mr. Carturan was there in the role of a pledge," Woeltz's attorney, Wayne Gosnell, said in a previous hearing, according to the Post. "He was essentially pledging and being hazed." Duplessie, a Miami resident, was not released Thursday. Both men have pleaded not guilty. Woeltz, a Kentucky-based cryptocurrency investor, dodged questions about whether he tortured Carturan and how it felt to be freed from jail as he walked out of Manhattan Supreme Court, the Post reported. Sources told the newspaper the bond was a combination of cash and property put up by Woeltz's father. As a condition of his bail, Woeltz will be subject to home confinement and electronic monitoring. He can only leave his home for doctor's appointments, to meet with his lawyers or for emergencies. Prosecutors said the pair kidnapped Carturan and tortured him over three weeks in a townhouse where they allegedly took his electronic devices and passport so he was unable to access them. "Informant further states that the defendant and unapprehended male demanded that Informant provide the defendant with Informant's bitcoin password so that the defendant and unapprehended male could take Informant's Bitcoin," a criminal complaint states. When Carturan refused to divulge his Bitcoin password, the pair allegedly subjected him to "beatings, including but not limited to using electric wires to shock Informant, using a firearm to hit Informant on the head causing a laceration, pointing the firearm at Informant's head on several occasions, and carrying Informant to the top flight of stairs within the above-mentioned location and hanging Informant over the ledge as the defendant threatened to kill Informant if Informant did not provide the defendant the Informant's Bitcoin password," the complaint added. Woeltz allegedly threatened the 28-year-old victim's family in Italy while subjecting him to humiliation by having people urinate on him and forcing him to take drugs during captivity, authorities have said. The pair allegedly wrote a manifesto about their plan to steal Carturan's cryptocurrency, prosecutors said. The alleged victim eventually managed to escape and called a nearby traffic officer. Both defendants are scheduled to appear in court Oct. 15.
