Archive
Grand Jury Returns Indictment Against Virginian for Conspiracy and Tax-Related Offenses
On July 10, 2011 the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia announced that a federal grand jury has indicted Jeffrey Charles, of Mathews County, Va., for conspiring with his daughter and son-in-law to defraud the United States. The docket also indicates that a warrant has been issued in this matter.
According to the indictment, Charles conspired with his daughter and son-in-law to impair and impede the IRS in ascertaining, computing, assessing and collecting federal income taxes. The government charged this count under the general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. 371. General conspiracy makes it a crime for two or more persons to agree to work together to commit any federal crime, so long as the participants in the conspiracy undertake any act, commonly referred to as an overt act, to further the underlying criminal activity. This overt act itself does not have to be a criminal act or illegal. Accordingly, in its indictment, the government alleges no less than 21 overt acts in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy to defraud the United States of tax revenue.
The indictment also alleges that Charles aided and assisted in the preparation of three false tax returns in his daughter’s name for tax years 2000, 2001, and 2005, and attached false documents to each tax return. The statute, 26 U.S.C. 7206(2), makes it a criminal offense for anyone to assist in the filing of a false return. The statute specifically disregards whether or not the fraudulent information or falsity was included with the knowledge or consent of the person authorized or required to present the documents to the IRS. Therefore, tax preparers can be liable for this offense even if the taxpayer himself intentionally produced false or fraudulent information. In such a scenario the tax preparer would have to demonstrate that they could not have reasonably known the information presented to them was false.
As alleged in the indictment, Charles also filed a false tax return in his own name for tax year 2006 in which he allegedly falsely reported earning $0.00 income. Since this count is with regards to Charles’ own tax return, the count is charged as 26 U.S.C. 7206(1), which targets the actual taxpayer or the person obligated to file, not the preparer.
An interesting note about this case is that according to the indictment Charles was affiliated with an organization known as the American Rights Litigators (ARL) (a.k.a. the Guiding Light of God Ministries). The organization is a tax protest group located in Lake County, Florida. As alleged in the indictment, Charles utilized materials provided by this organization to fulfill his alleged criminal endeavors.
However, it may be constitutionally improper for the government to use Charles’ affiliation with this group against him at trial. Using someone’s political affiliations against them in the court of law gets dangerously close to offending the First Amendment. Therefore, defense counsel in this matter should probably attempt to limit its usage in court and look into whether the investigation into Charles was originally initiated due to his association with this protest group.
The author of this blog is Erich Ferrari, an attorney specializing in Federal Criminal Defense matters. If you have any questions please contact him at 202-280-6370 or ferrari@ferrari-legal.com.
Former Virginia Man Sentenced for Bank Fraud and Identity Theft Scheme Targeting Young Navy Sailors
On June 6, 2012 the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia announced that Lionel Jason Haynes was sentenced to seven years and three months in prison for bank fraud (18 U.S.C. 1344) and aggravated identity theft (18 U.S.C. 1028A(c)). He was also ordered to pay $181,960 in restitution.
According to court documents and proceedings, Haynes, a former Navy sailor, executed a scheme to defraud Navy Federal Credit Union (NFCU) by victimizing young, impressionable sailors. Posing as a Chief Petty Officer, Navy SEAL or as a representative of the Navy’s Fleet and Family Services Center, Haynes would approach a sailor on Navy Base Norfolk and offer assistance to help him purchase a car.
He would ask for their personal identifying information and bank account information under the pretense of needing it to determine pre-approval for an auto loan. Once he received this information, he accessed their NFCU bank account, requested an auto loan, and changed the mailing address to an address to which he had access. He received the check, wrote down the fraudulent vehicle information, forged their name, and had an associate (the purported seller) cash the check. He victimized 14 different sailors in this manner.
In its sentencing memorandum the government requested 60 months’ imprisonment for bank fraud, plus 24 months for identity related fraud. Although the defense moved for a downward departure, it is apparent that no such departure was granted by the sentencing judge. Mr. Haynes was sentenced to exactly what was requested by the government and prescribed in the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Unfortunately for Mr. Haynes his request to have his identity theft conviction run concurrently was denied, probably because the statute specifically prescribes the sentence to run consecutively. As such, instead of serving 5 years and 3 months in prison, he will serve 7 years and three months.
Not all was lost however. According to sentencing documents the judge did grant Mr. Hayne’s request to be placed in a prison near his family in New York and ordered him to continue his education while in prison. Court documents made it clear that Mr. Haynes was in college during the sentencing phase of the case.
This case was investigated by the Navy Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) and prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Eastern District of Virginia.
The author of this blog is Erich Ferrari, an attorney specializing in Federal Criminal Defense matters. If you have any questions please contact him at 202-280-6370 or ferrari@ferrari-legal.com.
Home Builder Indicted in $14.7 Million Construction Investment Scheme
On March 1, 2012 a federal grand jury indicted Patrick J. Belzner, a/k/a “Patrick McCloskey,” of Glen Arm, Maryland fo conspiring to commit wire fraud arising from an investment fraud scheme.
The indictment alleges that in order to gain their victims’ confidence, Belzner and his co-conspirators caused victim investors and borrowers to enter into escrow agreements which stated that no person other than the victims had the ability to remove the escrowed funds without the victims’ permission. Belzner told the victims that a co-conspirator had to be the attorney assigned as the escrow agent.
The indictment alleges that Belzner and his co-conspirator fraudulently withdrew approximately $14,730,780 from the escrow accounts and used these stolen funds to satisfy their business and personal debts. To conceal their scheme, Belzner and his co-conspirators allegedly: emailed fabricated bank statements to victims that misrepresented the escrow account balance and the date by when the investors’ money would be returned. Belzner and his co-conspirators also used funds fraudulently obtained from some victim investors to repay money owed to previous victim investors, or to other individuals to whom the conspirators owed debts.
Belzner faces a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and fine of $250,000 or twice the value of the gain or loss. The indictment further seeks forfeiture of at least $14,730,780, the amount of money stolen from victim investors.
Belzner’s alleged co-conspirators are not named in the indictment. According to the indictment Bezner’s co-conspirators included a home builder from Baltimore, Maryland, an attorney licensed to practice in Maryland, a senior underwriter from Newport Beach, California, and an attorney licensed to practice in California. The government may still be building its case against the other co-conspirators, offering the defendant the opportunity to cooperate with investigators. However, since the indictment was recently unsealed, there is a good chance that the other co-conspirators were actually involved in the investigation into Belzner.
Co-conspirators make for interesting government witnesses. These “insider” witnesses provide the government with invaluable insight into the inner workings of the alleged crime. However, due to a co-conspirator’s own precarious position as a criminally liable person, defense counsel is afforded the opportunity to seriously call into question the reliability, veracity, and character of such witnesses.
The author of this blog is Erich Ferrari, an attorney specializing in Federal Criminal Defense matters. If you have any questions please contact him at 202-280-6370 or ferrari@ferrari-legal.com.
Former Executive at Gourmet Foods Company Sentenced to 30 Months in Prison for Embezzling Over $1 million from Her Employer
In the Central District of California, a woman was sentenced on February 13, 2012 for embezzling more than $1 million from her employer, a Santa Barbara-based gourmet food company. Lisa Sackie, 48, was sentenced by United States District Judge George H. Wu, who also ordered the defendant to pay $1.1 million in restitution to Future Food Brands, the parent company of Santa Barbara Bay Foods.
Sackie pleaded guilty to two counts of mail fraud in August of 2011, admitting that she wrote company checks to herself and to pay for personal expenses. Sackie pleaded to an information, and subsequently waived her right to a grand jury indictment. Sackie’s decision to plead to an information and waive her right to an indictment likely benefited her in sentencing because she admitted guilt early in the process and saved government resources. In fact, according to her sentencing memorandum and the sentencing guidelines, Sackie was facing a sentencing range of 33 to 41 months. Accordingly, Sackie was sentenced to 33 months in prison, the very bottom of her recommended sentencing range. Although her attorneys’ request for a variance of 33 months of probation was denied, Sackie benefited from cooperating, as reflected in the judge’s determination to sentence her at the bottom of the applicable range.
According to the plea agreement the government agreed to bring no additional charges against the defendant based upon her scheme to defraud her employer. Thus, instead of facing a multitude of fraud counts, Sackie only faced the maximum penalty of two fraud counts. Had Sackie not agreed to a plea agreement early on, the government would have likely convened a grand jury and charged her with a multitude of fraud counts dating as far back as 2004, which is when the government alleges Sackie’s scheme to defraud had begun. Depending on the full extent of the circumstances a defendant faces, it may be prudent to plea early, much like Sackie, and not put the government to its constitutional burden of proving a case.
The author of this blog is Erich Ferrari, an attorney specializing in Federal Criminal Defense matters. If you have any questions please contact him at 202-280-6370 or ferrari@ferrari-legal.com.
Patient Recruiter Pleads Guilty in Louisiana Health Care Fraud Scheme
On July 15, 2010 a federal grand jury in the Middle District of Louisiana named Fred Belcher, among others, in a five-count indictment. The indictment specifically charged Mr. Belcher with (1) Conspiracy to Commit Health Care Fraud and (2) Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and to Receive and Pay Health Care Kickbacks. On January 31, 2012 Mr. Belcher pled guilty to one count of Conspiracy to Commit Health Care Fraud, effectively dropping one of the conspiracy charges against him in return for his plea.
Mr. Belcher’s plea admitted to the court that he worked as a recruiter for Healthcare 1 LLC, Medical 1 Patient Services LLC, and Lifeline Healthcare Services Inc., Louisiana-based companies that fraudulently billed durable medical equipment (DME) to the Medicare program from 2004 to 2009. He and other recruiters were hired to obtain prescriptions for DME such as leg braces, arm braces, power wheel chairs, and wheel chair accessories. Specifically, Belcher recruited Medicare beneficiaries to attend “health fairs” that he organized at churches and other locations in the beneficiaries’ communities. At these fairs, he obtained information from the beneficiaries and paid a doctor to prescribe medically unnecessary DME for the beneficiaries. Belcher then sold these prescriptions to the three Louisiana companies listed above to bill Medicare.
Unlike traditional criminal cases, defendants involved in criminal activity related to government health care programs (i.e. Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) must be conscious of potential enforcement actions by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) in addition to any criminal consequences. OIG’s mission is to protect the integrity of HHS programs as well as health and welfare beneficiaries. The OIG accomplishes this primarily by conducting audits, investigations, and evaluations. Perhaps most importantly, OIG has the power to exclude persons from participating in or providing services for or on behalf of HHS programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. In essence, to be excluded by the OIG means being black-listed from the medical industry.
Exclusions are a serious and potentially devestating consequence of pleading guilty to criminal activity involving HHS programs. A quick search of OIG’s database on January 31, 2012 shows that Mr. Belcher has yet to be excluded from the Medicare program. This however, does not mean that he won’t eventually be excluded. OIG exclusions tend to happen subsequent to a guilty plea or criminal investigation and in addition to any imprisonment, forfeiture, or fines levied in the criminal case. In many ways, exclusion by the OIG can be worse for the defendant than many criminal consequences because it denies the defendant the ability to earn a livelihood in the only industry the defendant is familiar with.
Therefore, defense counsel should immediately engage in a dialogue with OIG on behalf of a client facing health care fraud charges to dicuss whether a potential exclusion is being considered. Exclusions are regularly for a term of years, thus there would seem to be room to negotiate more favorable terms for one’s client if an exclusion is inevitable. Moreover, defense counsel should be conscious of an individual client’s exposure to exclusion whenever a corporate entity in the medical field is being investigated or enters into a non-prosecution agreement. Even in instances where a particular client is not charged with criminal conduct, OIG may unilaterally move to have that person excluded from the Medicare program depending on the scope of the entity’s admissions about the client. Nonetheless, defendants in such cases must be made aware of the potential for exclusion so that they can make an informed decision about accepting a plea agreement or going to trial.
The author of this blog is Erich Ferrari, an attorney specializing in Federal Criminal Defense matters. If you have any questions please contact him at 202-280-6370 or ferrari@ferrari-legal.com.
U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York Announces Extradition of Four Israeli Defendants Charged in Multi-Million Dollar Fraud Scheme
The US Attorney for the Southern District of New York recently announced that four defendants have been extradited from Israel on charges relating to their participation in multiple lottery telemarketing fraud schemes. Many of those charged in two indictments in 2008 and 2009 have already been arrested and have either plead guilty to conspiracy and/or fraud charges or been found guilty by bench trial.
The four recently extradited include Avi Ayache, Yaron Bar, and Ian Kaye, all of whom were arrested in Israel back in July of 2009 awaiting extradition to the United States. The fourth man, Shai Kadosh, who was indicted back in September 2008 was a fugitive until he was arrested in Israel in December of 2011.
The four men and their co-conspirators allegedly operated phony “lottery prize” schemes out of numerous boiler rooms in Israel. The schemes targeted hundreds of victims, mostly elderly, throughout the United States. To identify potential victims, the defendants purchased from list brokers the names and contact information of U.S. residents who subscribed to sweepstakes lotteries. They then contacted the victims and solicited information about their finances by falsely telling them they had won a substantial cash prize that they would receive as soon as they paid the necessary fees and taxes. In reality, there was no lottery prize. Collectively, the American victims in these lottery fraud schemes lost approximately $25 million.
Ayache, Bar, Kaye, and Kadosh are each charged with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and mail fraud through telemarketing, which carries a maximum penalty of 30 years in prison. In addition, Ayache, Bar, and Kadosh are each charged with two substantive counts of wire fraud through telemarketing, each of which carry a maximum potential penalty of 30 years in prison. Ayache and Bar are also charged with conspiracy to commit money laundering, which carries a maximum potential penalty of 20 years in prison. The enhanced fraud penalties are a result of the telemarketing scheme employed by the defendants. According to 18 U.S.C. 2326 there is up to a 10 year penalty enhancement when the fraud is carried out by telemarketing and targets at least 10 elderly people over the age of 55.
The government will also seek forfeiture and mandatory restitution of up to $25 million in substitute assets to recover the defendants’ ill-gotten gains.
The author of this blog is Erich Ferrari, an attorney specializing in Federal Criminal Defense matters. If you have any questions please contact him at 202-280-6370 or ferrari@ferrari-legal.com.
Former Investment Fund Manager from Los Angeles Charged with Defrauding Investors
John Farahi, of Bel Air Estates, California, was named in a 41-count indictment returned on December 7, 2011 by a federal grand jury. The former investment fund manager defrauded investors out of millions of dollars by falsely promising investors their money would be invested conservatively to purchase corporate bonds backed by the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and then collaborating with his corporate counsel to cover-up the fraud.
Farahi, a former Reno, Nevada City Council Member and Farsi-language radio investment advisor, instead used the investment funds for a variety of personal purposes, including to support his family’s lavish lifestyle, to make Ponzi payments to early clients of his investment fund, and to trade in high-risk and speculative future options trading. Farahi was able to attract many of his clients through his daily radio show in which he touted a conservative investment philosophy. Most of his clients were members of the Southern California Iranian-Jewish community.
In the face of huge trading losses at the end of 2008, Farahi allegedly tried to extend the scheme by drawing down extensively on lines of credits at banks while making false statements to those banks about his financial condition. The victim banks included TARP recipients Bank of America and U.S. Bank as well as Sun West Bank.
The indictment charges Farahi with 16 counts of mail fraud, one count of wire fraud, five counts of offering for sale unregistered securities, four counts of loan fraud, one count of aggravated identity theft, five counts of alteration of documents, one count of suborning perjury, one count of concealing a material fact, one count of witness tampering. If he is convicted of the 40 counts in which he is charged, Farahi would face a statutory maximum sentence of 717 years in federal prison.
It is alleged that Farahi’s scheme lasted from 2005 until 2010. The Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) had filed a federal complaint alleging violations of federal securities laws against Farahi and other in January 2010. Many of the charges Farahi now faces are derived from his attempts to mislead, conceal, and redirect the SEC’s investigation. Otherwise known as cover-up crimes, targets of federal investigations often get themselves into more trouble early on in an investigation by lying to investigators or acting unethically. Now that the SEC has referred the case to the DOJ for criminal prosecution, Farahi now faces a significant number of charges in addition to his initial fraud scheme.
The author of this blog is Erich Ferrari, an attorney specializing in Federal Criminal Defense matters. If you have any questions please contact him at 202-280-6370 or ferrari@ferrari-legal.com.
Former Portfolio Manager Charged with Fraudulently Overvaluing Hedge Fund Assets
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York announced that hedge fund portfolio manager Michael Balboa was arrested on December 1, 2011 on charges related to his alleged scheme to overvalue by more than $80 million the assets of Millennnium Global Emerging Credit Fund (the “Hedge Fund”), the hedge fund at which he was employed. Balboa, a resident of the United Kingdom, was arrested in New York City and was presented before U.S. Magistrate Judge Gabriel Gorenstein the same day. Mr. Balboa was also subject to an SEC complaint alleging many of the same facts. The case was referred to Justice for criminal prosecution.
As alleged, Balboa, along with co-conspirators, manipulated the valuation process at his former hedge fund to make it appear financially stronger than it really was and for his own personal gain. U.S. Attorney Preet Bhara stated that those actions of Balboa harmed the fund and deceived its investors.
The Indictment alleges that Balboa served as the portfolio manager for the Hedge Fund from December 2006 to October 2008, when it ceased operation. The Hedge Fund’s strategy was to invest in a portfolio of corporate and soveriegn debt instruments in emerging countries. The Hedge Fund utilized an independent valuation agent (the “IVA”) to determine its “net asset value” (“NAV”), which is the value of the Hedge Fund’s assets, less liabilities and estimated costs of sale/liquidation. The Hedge Fund referenced the role of the IVA in a variety of documents that were sent to its investors and prospective investors, including an offering memorandum, monthly newsletters, and responses to due diligence questionnaires (“DDQs”). In one DDQ, the Hedge Fund noted that “[t]here are no assets valued in house,” and that the IVA “calculates the NAV of [the Hedge Fund] independently of Millennium Global.” The Hedge Fund relied on the IVA’s determinations in advising its investors of the Hedge Fund’s month-end NAV and NAV per share.
From January 2008 through October 2008, Blaboa allegedly instructed two co-conspirators (“CC-1” and “CC-2”) to provide the IVA with substantially inflated prices for one of the Hedge Fund’s securities – payment-adjusted warrants from the Government of Nigeria (the “Nigerian Warrants”). CC-1 and/or CC-2 provided these overvalued prices to the IVA. Although the Nigerian Warrants traded between $145 and $258 from January 2007 to October 2008, CC-1 and/or CC-2 provided the IVA with price valuations or “marks” ranging from $531.25 to $3,500.00, at various times throughout this period. The IVA then used these falsely inflated marks in computing the monthly NAV for the Hedge Fund. This caused the IVA to overstate the NAV by tens of millions of dollars. These overstatements were communicated to investors through, among other things, monthly newsletters that outlined the NAV and NAV per share of the Hedge Fund.
Balboa is charged with one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud and wire fraud, one count of securities fraud and one count of wire fraud. The conspiracy count carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison, and the substantive counts each carry a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.
The investigation leading up to the charges Balboa now faces were brought in coordination with President Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, an interagency task force designed to wage an aggressive, coordinated, and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. Individuals involved in the financial industry should strive to follow protocol at all stages of their dealings to avoid being caught up in an investigation by this formidable body.
The author of this blog is Erich Ferrari, an attorney specializing in Federal Criminal Defense matters. If you have any questions please contact him at 202-280-6370 or ferrari@ferrari-legal.com.
65 Count Indictment Against Texas Man for Bankruptcy Fraud and Structuring Financial Transactions
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Texas announced charges against Jack Texas Alves. The grand jury returned a 65 count indictment against Mr. Alves for one count of bankruptcy fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 152 and 64 counts of structuring domestic financial transactions in violation of 31 U.S.C. 5324(a)(3).
The indictment alleges that in a bankruptcy court filing on May 23, 2008, Mr. Alves falsely stated the amount of cash he had in his possession was $4,000 when in fact, Mr. Alves knew he possessed substantially more cash which he concealed from the bankruptcy court and creditors. The indictment further alleges that Mr. Alves engaged in a pattern of structuring bank deposits, totaling more than $100,000 in a 12 month period, for the purpose of evading reporting requirements. According to a detailed list in the indictment, from February 24, 2010 until May 12, 2011, Mr. Alves made a total of 64 bank deposits-each one between $5000 and $8100.
Not mentioned in the accouncement or the indictment is whether Mr. Alves’ bank notified FinCEN of these transactions by filing suspicious activity reports or SARs. The indictment dates all of the transactions and it isn’t suprising that the bank caught on to Mr. Alves activities. For example, Mr. Alves made a deposit almost every business day for nearly two months. Each deposit was shy of the standard trigger for reporting purposes, $10,000. Bank’s are instructed to report structured transactions when series of deposits in a short duration of time add up to an amount that would have otherwise been reported if deposited together. Furthermore, banks are prohibited from telling a person that they filed an SAR about them to FinCEN. Thus, Mr. Alves likely had no idea that the bank had sent the SAR to FinCEN where it was being processed by analysts who eventually coordinated with law enforcement officials about the transactions.
The indictment also indicates that the government is seeking forfeiture of two bank accounts currently seized. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 981(a)(1)(C), 28 U.S.C. 2461 and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedures Rule 32.2, the government is seeking to forfeit funds that Mr. Alves alledly concealed from the bankruptcy court and creditors. Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 5317(c)(1)(A) and Rule 32.2 the government also seeks forfeiture of the funds involved in the structured transactions. The funds the government looks to forfeit amount to nearly $400,000.
The author of this blog is Erich Ferrari, an attorney specializing in Federal Criminal Defense matters. If you have any questions please contact him at 202-280-6370 or ferrari@ferrari-legal.com.
Seven Individuals Indicted for Engineering Sophisticated Internet Fraud Scheme That Infected Millions of Computers Worldwide
On November 9, 2011 the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York announced charges against against six Estonian nationals and one Russian national for engaging in a massive and sophisticated Internet fraud scheme that infected with malware more than four million computers located in over 100 countries. Of the computers infected with malware, at least 500,000 were in the United States, including computers belonging to U.S. government agencies, such as NASA; educational institutions; non-profit organizations; commercial businesses; and individuals. The malware secretly altered the settings on infected computers enabling the defendants to digitally hijack Internet searches and re-route computers to certain websites and advertisements, which entitled the defendants to be paid. The defendants subsequently received fees each time these websites or ads were clicked on or viewed by users. The malware also prevented the installation of anti-virus software and operating system updates on infected computers, leaving those computers and their users unable to detect or stop the defendants’ malware, and exposing them to attacks by other viruses.
Six of the defendants, Vladimir Tsastin, Timur Gerassimenko, Dmitri Jegorov, Valeri Aleksejev, Konstantin Poltev and Anton Ivanov, all Estonian nationals, were arrested and taken into custody November 8, 2011 in Estonia by the Estonian Police and Border Guard Board. The U.S. Attorney’s Office will seek their extradition to the United States. The seventh defendant, Andrey Taame, a Russian national, remains at large.
As alleged in the indictment, from 2007 until October 2011, the defendants controlled and operated various companies that masqueraded as legitimate publisher networks (the “Publisher Networks”) in the Internet advertising industry. The Publisher Networks entered into agreements with ad brokers under which they were paid based on the number of times that Internet users clicked on the links for certain websites or advertisements, or based on the number of times that certain advertisements were displayed on certain websites. Thus, the more traffic to the advertisers’ websites and display ads, the more money the defendants earned under their agreements with the ad brokers. As alleged in the indictment, the defendants fraudulently increased the traffic to the websites and advertisements that would earn them money. The defendants accomplished this by making it appear to advertisers that the Internet traffic came from legitimate clicks and ad displays on the defendants’ Publisher Networks when, in actuality, it had not.
The defendants accomplished their scheme by employing both “click hijacking” and “advertising replacement fraud.” In “click hijacking” schemes the user of an infected computer clicks on a search result link displayed through a search engine query, the Malware causes the computer to be re-routed to a different website. Instead of being brought to the website to which the user asked to go, the user is brought to a website designated by the defendants. In “advertising replacement fraud” schemes the defendants used malware and rogue DNS servers which replaced legitimate advertisements on websites with substituted advertisements that triggered payments to the defendants. It is alleged in the indictment that both schemes earned the defendants at least $14 million in ill-gotten gains.
The defendants are being charged with wire fraud conspiracy, wire fraud, computer intrusion, computer intrusion conspiracy, and computer intrusion by transmitting information. The indictment also alleges that the defendants laundered the proceeds of the scheme through numerous companies.
The author of this blog is Erich Ferrari, an attorney specializing in Federal Criminal Defense matters. If you have any questions please contact him at 202-280-6370 or ferrari@ferrari-legal.com.
