Federal prosecutors say an Upstate New York activist sent 80 crypto payments to a supposed Palestinian Islamic Jihad fighter—and cheered October 7 in private messages.
Story Snapshot
- Prosecutors allege 80 transfers totaling about $30,116 in stablecoin went overseas.
- Recovered chats include praise for October 7 and open hatred of Jews, prosecutors say.
- The charge is attempting to provide material support to a designated terrorist group.
- The recipient’s actual membership in Palestinian Islamic Jihad is based on self-claims in the complaint.
What prosecutors say happened, and why it matters
The Justice Department says Catherine Beth Washburn, 37, of Irondequoit, New York, sent about $30,116 in eighty separate cryptocurrency transfers to an account used by someone claiming to fight for Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The Department of Justice calls Palestinian Islamic Jihad a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization. The criminal complaint also cites messages where Washburn praised October 7 and discussed weapons, ammunition, and attacks with the same contact.
Federal filings say investigators recovered messages in February and March 2026 where Washburn wrote that she wished every day were October 7 and felt excited when hearing of an “occupation soldier” killed. The government says she admitted to hating Jews and wanting Israel to disappear. Prosecutors say she led a group formed after October 7 called the Direct Action Movement for Palestinian Liberation and shared an image that appears to show her with grenades near a Hamas flag.
The charge and the legal threshold
Washburn faces a criminal complaint for attempting to provide material support to a designated terrorist group. That is a serious national security charge. The government must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The complaint is not a conviction. The Department of Justice press materials repeat the presumption of innocence, as they should. But the allegations, if proven, would show intent and action aligned with a terror group’s goals, not just heated speech.
Financial trails often anchor these cases. Prosecutors point to eighty transfers and a clear total in a specific stablecoin. That is a checkable ledger on a public blockchain. Messages that match the timing and purpose of the payments can tie motive to action. A jury tends to see that pairing—money plus motive—as more than noise. That is why the dollar figure and the count of transfers matter so much here.
The open questions defense lawyers will chase
The recipient’s status stands out. The complaint says the person identified as a Palestinian Islamic Jihad fighter and claimed to take part in attacks. The public record does not show independent proof of membership or battlefield activity. Defense counsel will press that gap. They will likely ask for chain-of-custody on the chats, a full transcript, and blockchain forensics that track the funds after receipt. They will want to show doubt about who, exactly, got the money.
That line of attack does not erase the messages that prosecutors quote. It tries to separate ugly talk from a legally defined act. The government will argue that material support does not require funding a specific attack. It requires providing resources to a designated group or its agents. The messages help show intent. The transfers help show support. If the recipient is proven to be tied to Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the case gets very hard for the defense.
How this fits a broader pattern and what comes next
This case mirrors a growing trend: terror finance moving through crypto rails in small, repeated payments. The government has stressed this shift for years and has seized accounts by the hundreds when it can trace the networks. The signals are the same here—frequent transfers, ideologically charged chats, and a claimed link to a foreign group. Expect prosecutors to lean on blockchain analysis and message authenticity to lock the narrative.
American conservative values start with moral clarity about terrorism and equal justice under law. If the evidence holds, this is not protest; it is aid to a terror group. That deserves punishment. If the key claim about the recipient’s identity is weak, the court should demand proof. The presumption of innocence protects everyone. The line between speech and support is bright in law. Money moves that line. This trial will test where the facts land.
Sources:
x.com, justice.gov, facebook.com
