To understand the specifics of this case, below we have quoted directly from the Petitioner’s Brief:

This case concerns the constitutionality of geofence warrants. For cell phone users to use certain services, their cell phones must continuously transmit their exact locations to their service providers. A geofence warrant allows law enforcement to obtain, from the service provider, the identities of users who were in the vicinity of a particular location at a particular time. In this case, law enforcement obtained, and served on Google, a geofence warrant seeking anonymized location data for every device within 150 meters of the location of a bank robbery within one hour of the robbery. After Google returned an initial list, law enforcement sought— without seeking an additional warrant—information about the movements of certain devices for a longer, two-hour period, and Google complied with that request as well. Then—again without seeking an additional warrant—law enforcement requested de anonymized subscriber information for three devices. One of those devices belonged to petitioner Okello Chatrie. Based on the evidence derived from the geofence warrant, petitioner was convicted of armed robbery.

The last time the Supreme Court wrestled with cell phone privacy issues was in Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018), which is a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning the privacy of historical cell site location information. The Court held in that case that the government violates the Fourth Amendment when accessing historical cell phone Iocation records containing the physical locations of cellphones without a search warrant. That case, however, was after a suspect was identified, making it unlike the current case before the Supreme Court.

We receive terabytes of data in discovery for our cases. Motions to suppress can be filed for all of the data seized from search warrants of phones. We are cognizant of the ever changing landscape of Fourth Amendment case law. We ensure that law enforcement follows the appropriate procedures for every single case. Contact us now if you have a case you would like to discuss.

The DOJ’s Health Care Fraud Unit coordinated the investigation with the help of strike forces across the nation. Key aspects of the historical take down include the following:

• Enormous monetary scale: Again, the federal government alleges $14.6 billion in intended losses in total across the criminal cases. Law enforcement has already seized $245 million in cash, luxury vehicles, cryptocurrency, and assets from alleged fraudsters. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) also proactively prevented $4 billion in fraudulent payments, suspended billing privileges of 205 providers.
• Civil charges and settlements: In addition to criminal charges being levied, law enforcement has also sought civil penalties from other providers and medical professionals. This includes civil charges against 20 defendants for $14.2 million in alleged fraud, as well as civil settlements with 106 defendants totaling $34.3 million.
• Transnational criminal networks: A major component—Operation Gold Rush—alleges a global ring used foreign straw owners to submit $10.6 billion in false claims for durable medical equipment. Though CMS blocked all but ~$41 million in Medicare payouts, insurers received about $900  Individuals abroad and co-conspirators in the U.S. used encrypted messaging and assumed identities to facilitate the purchase of medical supply companies and subsequent fraud by exploiting the stolen identities of over one million Americans spanning all 50 states and using their confidential medical information to submit the fraudulent claims.
• Telemarketing/genetic testing schemes: One $703 million scheme involved deceptive telemarketing, AI-generated “consent” calls, and stolen Medicare IDs—all to bill labs and DME suppliers
• Wound-care fraud on vulnerable patients: Roughly $1.1 billion in fraudulent Medicare submissions for amniotic allografts were applied to terminally‑ill or hospice patients, without medical need or oversight
• Opioid prescription diversion: 74 defendants, including 44 medical professionals, are accused of diverting over 15 million pills (e.g., oxycodone, hydrocodone), feeding the illegal drug trade
• Genetic testing & telemedicine: At least 49 defendants were tied to over $1.17 billion in telemedicine/genetic testing fraud, a key enforcement focus of the Takedown.

These are just some of the schemes and methods alleged as health care fraud. Additional cases totaling approximately $1.84 billion involved medically unnecessary tests and treatments, kickbacks, and stolen controlled substances. DOJ’s Health Care Fraud Unit, along with FBI, HHS‑OIG, DEA, CMS, and state AGs, led this nationwide operation. The Government was able to leverage cloud computing, artificial intelligence, and advanced analytics to identify emerging health care fraud schemes. Specifically, a new Data Fusion Center used AI to spot suspicious billing patterns

Professionals in the medical industry could face disruptions based on these trends. Individuals could be criminally indicted despite a lack of financial gain for any peripheral involvement in these schemes. With over 205 providers with billing privileges already suspended or revoked, firms must evaluate billing practices and ensure compliance before audits or criminal actions escalate. Medical professionals and individuals in the industry should be proactive in address any potential problems. Assessing practices through comprehensive billing audits, tightening consent documentation and patient qualification protocols, and reviewing prescribing practices are key to ensuring compliance.

Given the unprecedented scope of this takedown, anyone involved in Medicare/Medicaid billing—especially in telemedicine, genetic testing, wound care, DME supply, opioid prescribing—should evaluate their practices now. Protecting your license, assets, and reputation hinges on early legal counsel, transparent operations, and robust documentation. Upon any contact from law enforcement, individuals should secure legal counsel immediately. The presumption of innocence matters, and charges are allegations—not convictions. Early intervention and strong representation can shift outcomes. Medical providers should document everything diligently. Medical necessity, patient consent, referrals, and codes must be in writing and defensible.

Even if charges carry potential fines or incarceration, negotiated resolutions mitigating those consequences are viable. At Conaway & Strickler, we are highly experienced in federal health care fraud cases. Contact us to discuss your situation confidentially—we’re here to protect your rights and your future.

Crypto money laundering follows the same pattern used for fiat (government-issued) currencies by “cleaning” funds gained through illicit means, before exchanging or withdrawing them for cash. Traditionally, money laundering involves disguising financial assets so they can be used without detection of the illegal activity that produced them. In the context of crypto, tokens are moved through various digital addresses to obscure their illegal origin and make them more difficult to trace.  

The privacy-preserving nature of crypto has opened the door for criminals to conceal the origin of illicitly gained funds through a variety of methods. Cybercriminals ultimately funnel assets through several businesses and online addresses to hide the money trail before transferring the funds to a seemingly legitimate source. 

There are several methods that criminals will use when engaging in cryptocurrency money laundering, including: 

• Smurfing: Splitting up large sums of money into smaller amounts so they can be sent via multiple transactions.  
• Exchange Hopping: Using multiple cryptocurrency exchanges to transfer funds across several platforms and obscure the money trail.  
• Crypto Swaps: Using multiple cryptocurrency wallet addresses to directly convert funds without an intermediary or a centralized exchange. 
• Offshore Transactions: Creating offshore accounts to hide the origin of funds. 
• Mixing: Blending together the crypto assets of multiple users, making it difficult to determine who owns what.   
• Gambling Platforms: Depositing tokens into online gambling websites to be either withdrawn as cash or used to place coordinated bets.  

Cybercriminals require other actors (individuals and sometimes shell companies) to facilitate this crypto money laundering. Like traditional money laundering, criminals recruit “money mules” to move or launder the illicit funds, often unknowingly. In the context of crypto, this is often done under the guise of a cryptocurrency investment scheme.  

Just as traditional money laundering can be federally prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 1956, crypto money laundering is a crime under that same law. In addition to money laundering charges, involvement in a cryptocurrency scam can lead to charges including conspiracy, wire fraud, mail fraud, and more. Further, individuals at all levels of these schemes can face prosecution, including those who may have unwittingly played the role of a money mule. 

With decades of experience in defending traditional financial fraud paired with a deep understanding of the newer world of cryptocurrency, our firm possesses the skills and expertise to assist those accused of crypto fraud. Contact us for a free consultation.  

“Cyber extortion is unfortunately a rapidly growing threat and highlights the ever-growing need for corporations to remain vigilant in cybersecurity efforts,” said Sean Burke, Acting Special Agent in Charge of FBI Atlanta. “This sentencing is just one example of the FBI working together to hold criminals that hide behind their computers accountable, regardless of their location.”

According to information presented in court, in June 2017, Purbeck purchased access to the computer server of a Griffin medical clinic on a darknet marketplace. He then used the stolen credentials to illegally access the computers of the medical clinic and removed records that contained the sensitive personal information of more than 43,000 individuals, including names, addresses, birth dates, and social security numbers.

In February 2018, Purbeck purchased access to a City of Newnan Police Department server on a darknet marketplace. Purbeck used the stolen credentials to hack into the City of Newnan’s computer systems and stole police reports and other documents, including personal information of more than 14,000 individuals.

Purbeck also attempted to extort a Florida orthodontist in July 2018, demanding a ransom payment in Bitcoin in return for his stolen patient files, threatening to sell the patient and personal information unless the orthodontist paid the ransom. Additionally, Purbeck threatened to sell the personal information of the orthodontist’s minor child. Purbeck harassed the orthodontist and his patients for 10 days with numerous threatening emails and text messages.

Song Wu, Chinese national, was indicted in September 2024, on charges for wire fraud and aggravated identity theft arising from his efforts to fraudulently obtain computer software and source code created by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (“NASA”), research universities, and private companies.

“Efforts to obtain our nation’s valuable research software pose a grave threat to our national security,” said U.S. Attorney Ryan K. Buchanan. “However, this indictment demonstrates that borders are not barriers to prosecuting bad actors who threaten our national security.” According to information presented in court, Song allegedly engaged in a multi-year “spear phishing” email campaign in which he created email accounts to impersonate U.S.-based researchers and engineers and then used those imposter accounts to obtain specialized restricted or proprietary software used for aerospace engineering and computational fluid dynamics. This specialized software could be used for industrial and military applications, such as development of advanced tactical missiles and aerodynamic design and assessment of weapons. In executing the scheme, Song allegedly sent spear phishing emails to individuals employed in positions with the United States government, including NASA, the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Army, and the Federal Aviation Administration.  Song also sent spear phishing emails to individuals employed in positions with major research universities in Georgia, Michigan, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Ohio, and with private sector companies that work in the aerospace field. Song’s spear phishing emails appeared to the targeted victims as having been sent by a colleague, associate, friend, or other person in the research or engineering community. His emails requested that the targeted victim send or make available source code or software to which Song believed the targeted victim had access. According to the indictment, while conducting this spear phishing campaign, Song was employed as an engineer at Aviation Industry Corporation of China (“AVIC”), a Chinese state-owned aerospace and defense conglomerate headquartered in Beijing, China.  AVIC manufactures civilian and military aircrafts and is one of the largest defense contractors in the world.

Ilya Lichtenstein, 35, of New York City, was sentenced recently to 60 months in federal prison for his involvement in a money laundering conspiracy arising from the hack and theft of approximately 120,000 bitcoin from Bitfinex, a global cryptocurrency exchange. According to information presented in court, Lichtenstein hacked into Bitfinex’s network in 2016, using advanced hacking tools and techniques. Once inside the network, Lichtenstein fraudulently authorized more than 2,000 transactions transferring 119,754 bitcoin from Bitfinex to a cryptocurrency wallet in Lichtenstein’s control. Lichtenstein then took steps to cover his tracks by deleting from Bitfinex’s network access credentials and other log files that could have revealed his conduct to law enforcement. Following the hack, Lichtenstein enlisted the help of his wife, Heather Morgan, in laundering the stolen funds. Lichtenstein, at times with Morgan’s assistance, employed numerous sophisticated laundering techniques, including using fictitious identities to set up online accounts; utilizing computer programs to automate transactions; depositing the stolen funds into accounts at a variety of darknet markets and cryptocurrency exchanges and then withdrawing the funds; converting bitcoin to other forms of cryptocurrency in a practice known as “chain hopping;” depositing a portion of the criminal proceeds into cryptocurrency mixing services; using U.S.-based business accounts to legitimize Lichtenstein’s and Morgan’s banking activity; and exchanging a portion of the stolen funds into gold coins. Additional information on this case is available on the United States Department of Justice’s website for large cases here.  

These types of schemes originated in 2020 and have gained international momentum through the use of social media platforms and online dating applications. In a departure from conventional financial scams, these fraudsters focus on psychological manipulation of victims by crafting elaborate fake identities to establish romantic or emotional connections with their targets.

After the scammer creates a fake online persona, the scam begins by initiating contact with a target. Often, the scammer will pretend to have stumbled across a “wrong number” as they contacted the victim. The next step is starting a conversation with a potential victim to gain their trust. The scammers often initiate benign chats about life, family, and work, and they’ll fabricate details about their own life that make them seem similar to you. Once the scammer gains trust, they will eventually pivot the conversation to investing and making claims about their own purported success with investments.

Once the target agrees to accept “help” with the investment process, the scammer typically explains how to wire money from their bank account to a crypto wallet and eventually to a “brokerage.” The scammer may initially encourage a modest investment and allow the victim to withdraw “returns” on their investment as proof the investment is legit. From there, the scammer will only continue to manipulate their victim into investing more and more. Once the fraudster is unable to convince the victim to continue making deposits, they will disappear and sever all contact.

A key feature that distinguishes pig butchering scams is the human aspect that shows a pattern of coercion and exploitation. Often times the low-level operators of these scams are victims themselves who may have been coerced into participating in these crimes under the guise of employment opportunities. Many of the perpetrators are lured from abroad then forced to commit the fraud by organized crime syndicates. The effects of pig butchering scams extend beyond the significant financial losses to encompass human rights issues tied to trafficking and coercion.

Perpetrators of pig butchering scams have been charged across the country by federal prosecutors working alongside the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section’s (CCIPS) National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team (NCET), which was established to combat the growing illicit use of cryptocurrencies and digital assets. In California, four defendants were charged with conspiracy to commit money laundering, concealment money laundering, and international money laundering for their involvement in a $20 million dollar pig butchering scheme.

Pig butchering scams were discussed in a recent episode of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. As the episode highlights, these scams are increasingly common and the losses to victims can be devastating.

Money Laundering refers to the illegal process of concealing the origins of money obtained through criminal activities, making it appear as if it comes from a legitimate source. This is criminalized under 18 U.S.C. § 1956. Money laundering using NFTs involves the illicit use of these digital assets to disguise the origins of illegally obtained funds. In this context, individuals create a fake record of sales on the blockchain by selling NFTs to themselves using different accounts. Once finished, they sell the NFT to an unsuspecting buyer and repeat the process.

Fraud has grown increasingly common in the crypto landscape due to its anonymous and decentralized nature. Fraud involving NFTs can manifest in various ways due to the unique characteristics of these digital assets. This is mostly being prosecuted as wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Some common forms of fraud associated with NFTs include:

1. Fake or Stolen NFTs: Fraudsters might create counterfeit NFTs by copying digital content and attempting to sell them as original or rare pieces. Additionally, they might steal someone else’s artwork or content and mint NFTs to sell without the creator’s consent.
2. False Representation: Individuals might misrepresent the ownership or authenticity of an NFT by falsely claiming it is associated with a particular creator or source, leading buyers to believe they are purchasing something of higher value or legitimacy than it actually holds.
3. Pump-and-Dump Schemes: Similar to traditional financial markets, some individuals may engage in pump-and-dump schemes within the NFT market. This involves artificially inflating the value of certain NFTs through false hype or manipulation, only to sell them off at a high price, leaving unsuspecting buyers with devalued assets.
4. Phishing and Scams: Scammers may use phishing techniques to trick NFT owners into providing their private keys or access to their digital wallets, allowing the fraudster to steal the NFTs. Additionally, fraudulent schemes and fake NFT marketplaces can deceive buyers and sellers into making transactions for non-existent or misrepresented NFTs.
5. Rug-Pull Scheme: As the term suggests, a “rug pull” refers to a scenario where the creator of an NFT and/or gaming project solicits investments and then abruptly abandons a project and fraudulently retains the project investors’ funds.

Law enforcement is continuing to prosecute these types of NFT schemes across the nation, in cases that allege millions of dollars being defrauded. Two defendants were charged for executing a $1 million NFT money laundering and fraud scheme in January 2022. In another NFT rug-pull, Aurelien Michel was charged for diverting $2.9 million dollars in an international fraud scheme.

Bitcoin is definitely attractive to money launderers because it is a decentralized currency that is not subject to government regulation. This makes it difficult, but not impossible, to track and trace Bitcoin transactions. Additionally, Bitcoin is often used in online transactions, which makes it easy to conceal the identity of the sender and receiver.

There are a number of ways to launder money using Bitcoin. One common method is to use a mixer, which is a service that mixes Bitcoin from multiple sources together. This makes it difficult to trace the original source of the Bitcoin. Another method is to use a tumbler, which is a service that breaks up Bitcoin transactions into smaller pieces and then reassembles them. This makes it difficult to track the individual transactions.

Bitcoin can also be used to purchase goods or services that are difficult to trace, such as drugs or weapons. This can make it difficult to identify the source of the funds used to purchase the goods or services.

Money laundering is a serious crime that can have a significant impact on the economy. It can also be used to finance terrorism and other criminal activities. Conaway & Strickler can help if the government is questioning you about or charging you with money laundering /wire fraud /bank fraud charges.

A lot of the times a money mule is utilized in money laundering schemes. A money mule is a person who transfers money on behalf of someone else, often without knowing that they are involved in a criminal activity. Money mules are typically recruited through online job scams, romance scams, or other fraudulent schemes. They are then asked to receive money from criminals, often through wire transfers or cryptocurrency transactions. The money is then transferred to other accounts, or used to purchase goods or services.

Money mules are often unaware that they are involved in a criminal activity. They may be promised a share of the money, or they may be led to believe that they are helping someone in need. However, money mules are always at risk of being caught and prosecuted. They may also face financial losses, as they may be held responsible for any money that is stolen from the criminals. The government often goes after these low end cases and prosecutes them federally.

Again, contact us immediately if you are being questioned by a federal agent about any of these issues.

First we asked, WHAT IS CRYPTOCURRENCY?

Its response:

Cryptocurrency is a digital or virtual currency that uses cryptography for security. A cryptocurrency is difficult to counterfeit because of this security feature. A defining feature of a cryptocurrency, and arguably its most endearing allure, is its organic nature. It is not issued by any central authority, rendering it theoretically immune to government interference or manipulation.

Cryptocurrencies are systems that allow for secure payments online which are denominated in terms of virtual “tokens.” These tokens are created using cryptographic techniques that allow them to be transferred between users without the need for a central authority. Bitcoin, the first and most well-known cryptocurrency, was created in 2009.

Cryptocurrencies have been gaining in popularity in recent years, as more and more people become aware of their potential benefits. These benefits include:

• Security: Cryptocurrencies are secured by cryptography, which makes them difficult to counterfeit or double-spend.
• Transparency: Cryptocurrencies are transparent and decentralized, which means that there is no central authority that controls them.
• Efficiency: Cryptocurrencies can be used to make secure, efficient, and low-cost payments.

However, there are also some risks associated with cryptocurrencies, such as:

• Volatility: The value of cryptocurrencies can be volatile, which means that they can lose value quickly.
• Hacking: Cryptocurrencies are vulnerable to hacking, as they are stored on digital platforms.
• Regulation: Cryptocurrencies are not currently regulated by governments, which means that there is no protection for consumers if they lose money investing in them.

Overall, cryptocurrencies are a new and innovative technology that has the potential to revolutionize the way we pay for goods and services. However, there are also some risks associated with them, so it is important to do your research before investing.

Second, we asked, WHAT IS CRYPTOCURRENCY CRIME?

Its response:Cryptocurrency crime is any crime that involves the use of cryptocurrency. This includes crimes such as money laundering, fraud, and theft.

Cryptocurrency crime is a growing problem, as the value of cryptocurrencies continues to rise. In 2021, cryptocurrency crime was estimated to be worth $14 billion. This is a significant increase from the $7.8 billion worth of cryptocurrency crime in 2020.

There are a number of factors that contribute to the growth of cryptocurrency crime. One factor is the anonymity of cryptocurrencies. Cryptocurrency transactions are typically recorded on a blockchain, but the identities of the participants are not always known. This makes it difficult for law enforcement to track down and prosecute criminals.

Another factor is the growing popularity of cryptocurrency exchanges. These exchanges allow users to buy and sell cryptocurrencies, and they often have poor security measures in place. This makes them easy targets for criminals.

Finally, the lack of regulation in the cryptocurrency industry makes it difficult for law enforcement to crack down on crime. There are currently no laws in many countries that specifically regulate cryptocurrencies. This means that criminals can often operate without fear of being caught.

Finally, we asked, WHAT IS CRYPTOCURRENCY FRAUD?

Its response:

Cryptocurrency fraud is a type of fraud that involves the use of cryptocurrencies to deceive or defraud people. Cryptocurrency fraud can take many forms, including:

• Pump-and-dump schemes: In a pump-and-dump scheme, fraudsters artificially inflate the price of a cryptocurrency by buying it in large quantities and then selling it to unsuspecting investors. Once the price has increased, the fraudsters sell their holdings and the price plummets, leaving investors with worthless tokens.
• Fake cryptocurrency exchanges: Fraudsters often set up fake cryptocurrency exchanges to trick people into investing in cryptocurrencies that do not exist. Once the fraudsters have collected money from victims, they disappear without a trace.
• Fake cryptocurrency wallets: Fraudsters often set up fake cryptocurrency wallets to steal people’s cryptocurrency. Once the fraudsters have stolen the cryptocurrency, they disappear without a trace.
• Cryptocurrency mining scams: Fraudsters often set up cryptocurrency mining scams to trick people into investing in fake cryptocurrency mining schemes. Once the fraudsters have collected money from victims, they disappear without a trace.
• Cryptocurrency investment scams: Fraudsters often set up cryptocurrency investment scams to trick people into investing in fake cryptocurrency investment schemes. Once the fraudsters have collected money from victims, they disappear without a trace.

——–

ChatGPT and now Bard are becoming more and more mainstream and law firms like Conaway & Strickler are finding ways to incorporate AI in to better representing our clients. In addition, it seems only natural to discuss new technologies at the same time as discussion cryptocurrency.

On March 10, 2022, Garland announced Associate Deputy Attorney General Kevin Chambers as the Director For Covid-19 Fraud Enforcement.

In August, 2022, President Biden signed laws that give the Department of Justice and other federal agencies more time to investigate and prosecute Covid-19 fraud. It extended the statute of limitations for fraud charges involving PPP and EIDL fraud to ten years.

And on September 14, 2022, the DOJ announced the establishment of three Strike Force teams created to enhance the Department’s existing efforts to combat and prevent COVID-19 related fraud. The Strike Force teams will operate out of U.S. Attorney’s Offices in the Southern District of Florida, the District of Maryland, and a joint effort between the Central and Eastern Districts of California.

Concerned about PPP loan or EIDL loan fraud investigations? Our firm has represented both companies and individuals facing questions from the bank or investigators. Please contact us before interacting with any investigators or agents.

So what to do to prepare? Some obvious first steps are educating employees on cyber safety measures, making sure emails are encrypted, ensuring cyber insurance is up to date and becoming familiar with your company’s assets. You want to have a procedure and plan written ahead of time.

It’s a Federal crime to commit aggravated identity theft.

The Defendant can be found guilty of aggravated identity theft only if all the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt:

(1) the Defendant knowingly transferred, possessed, or used another person’s [means of identification] [identification documents];

(2) without lawful authority; and

(3) during and in relation to [the eligible felony alleged in the indictment].

[A “means of identification” is any name or number used, alone or together with any other information, to identify a specific person, including a name, social security number, date of birth, officially issued driver’s license or identification number, alien registration number, passport number, employer or taxpayer identification number, or electronic identification number or routing code. It can also include a fingerprint, voice print or other biometric data.]

[An “identification document” is a document made or issued by or for the United States Government, a state or foreign government or political subdivision.]

The Government must prove that the Defendant knew that the [means of identification] [identification documents], in fact, belonged to another actual person, [living or dead,] and not a fictitious person.

The Government must prove that the Defendant knowingly transferred, possessed, or used another person’s identity “without lawful authority.” The Government does not have to prove that the Defendant stole the [means of identification] [identification documents]. The Government is required to prove the Defendant transferred, possessed, or used the other person’s [means of identification] [identification documents] for an unlawful or illegitimate purpose.

The Government also must prove that the [means of identification] [identification document] was possessed “during and in relation to” the crime alleged in the indictment. The phrase “during and in relation to” means that there must be a firm connection between the Defendant, the [means of identification] [identification documents], and the crime alleged in the indictment. The [means of identification] [identification documents] must have helped with some important function or purpose of the crime, and not simply have been there accidentally or coincidentally. The [means of identification] [identification documents] at least must facilitate, or have the potential of facilitating, the crime alleged in the indictment.

We at Conaway & Strickler, PC know how to combat these type of charges. Please feel free to access our blog for other entries here

Please contact us to learn more should you be facing criminal charges.

With all of this going on, the US Attorney’s office increased its prosecutions of individuals of white collar crimes in the year 2021. White collar charges like fraud, theft, corruption, bribery, environmental crime, tax fraud, health care fraud, procurement fraud, money laundering, PPP loan fraud, etc will continue to get more attention from the Department of Justice.

What does this mean? It means that investigations of any sort need to be taken seriously and that you should contact a lawyer immediately if any wrongdoing is alleged.

Conaway & Strickler, PC has a long history of handling fraud cases of all varieties and is well equipped at fighting the DOJ in their overzealous prosecutions. Please feel free to contact us so that we can help you avoid future headaches.

As chair of the Cyber Crime committee at iTechlaw, Meg Strickler gives her insight on data breaches from various perspectives on an iTechlaw webinar this week. She and the other panelists discuss:

1. The criminal charge of BEC (Business email compromise) fraud
2. Representing a victim of BEC
3. Theft of trade secrets
4. Representing a victim of theft of trade secrets by a disgruntled employee or insider
5. Protecting small companies from potential hacks/ data breaches
6. Contacting law enforcement after a hack/breach
7. Commencing civil litigation in an attempt at restitution
8. Aggravated identity theft
9. Protection of PII
10. Cyber insurance

Please watch here: https://lnkd.in/gjHgVWt

Cyber extortion can take many forms. The below, is by no means, an exhaustive list.

*Denial-of-Service attacks – attack happens, and then hackers demand money to stop the attack.

*Patient data attacks – taking information from server and then hackers demand money to stop the publication of PII and/or medical information of patients.

*Installing malware – for example installing malware on an executive’s individual computer, taking data and then demanding money to keep that information from going public.

*Disgruntled employee attack – employee breaks in to company’s computer system and wreaks havoc. This type of hacker usually wants recognition, not necessarily money, but it will still cost the company money cleaning up the mess.

*Law firm attack. Law firm is breached and data taken. This data can take the form of intellectual property, mergers, or any type of litigation. The data can then be used to generate better outcome for one side of the litigation, or can be used to embarrass firms. Hackers may also do this for political gain.

*Hackers can plant information, in addition to malware. Interestingly, cyber extortionists can plant child pornography on an executive’s computer, and then threaten to make that information public.

*Hackers can release personal data. Hackers can also access an executive’s computer and threaten to release private information such as credit card information, PII, or embarrassing pictures/sexts.

Payment will not guarantee that the issue will be resolved.

How to protect against this? Protective measures are imperative in today’s world. Backing up data, practicing cyber hygiene, having a current incident response plan, data encryption, constant risk assessment, and weighing which data is most important are some of the protective measures all of us can take to protect against cyber extortion. Also, it is important to get cyber extortion insurance coverage to protect against the losses incurred.

For other entries on cyber crimes, please click here and for our blog, please click here

Cyber Crime: WannaCrypt hacker‘s malware ransom scheme

What’s new in cyber crime? In May, 2017, hackers stole private data in a large malware attack affecting more than 300,000 computers and taking down systems all over the world. In order to receive a code to “decrypt” their scrambled data, users were asked to send ransom money through Bitcoin.

The assumption is that the attackers felt they could anonymously cash-in ransom money from frantic users who were willing to pay. But was that really the case?

High profile attack means law enforcement is watching and keeping abreast of recent cyber crime attacks

Bitcoin is built using numbered codes rather than actual names and addresses making identities difficult to trace. Many people talk about Bitcoin’s popularity for illicit transactions like drug sales, ransoms and porn.

Nevertheless, Bitcoin does log transactions. WannaCrypt hackers would have trouble cashing in without leaving an electronic trail that law enforcement could track.

Based on companies that analyze Bitcoin, the estimated take of the WannaCrypt hackers stands about $70,000.

Bitcoin exchanges attempt to stay legal

Companies known as exchanges have popped up to assist Bitcoin merchants to exchange the electronic currency for cash. Many of these are regulated and run similarly to businesses like Western Union. They are required by regulation to verify identities in order to combat cybercrime.

They are already aware of which blockchain addresses are associated with criminal activity. Most have zero tolerance for money laundering and illegal transactions.

Exchanges located in places where regulations are more lax, may not want to handle the transaction either. Being linked to a high-profile event like the WannaCrypt malware scam could cause more trouble than its worth.

Mixing services may not help either

The criminal enterprises that claim to be able to mix up the blockchain data to confuse the trail are unreliable. Criminals would need to be able to trust multiple players in the scheme.

It appears the hackers for WannaCrypt were not terribly sophisticated in their use of Bitcoin’s technology. Their account set-up is easy to trace. Even if they sell their take in small amounts, it is likely to be traced back to them by law enforcement.

A person, who gets caught hacking or conducting electronic scams using Bitcoin or other online services, will want to consult an attorney who focuses in this area of criminal defense.

More blogs here.

One result of the vast reach of the Internet is that law enforcement is now attempting to combat cyber crime globally. Law enforcement agencies in many countries hope to utilize a coordinated and collaborative cross-border approach in order to respond to growing cyber threats. This means that multi-national corporations and law enforcement are attepting to cooperate with one another on a greater basis to achieve this goal.

With the increased cooperation between the corporate world and law enforcement, privacy rights are being eroded, especially by United States corporations as recent revelations by Edward J. Snowden show. How can the benefits derived from cooperation between corporations and government be balanced with the individual’s interest in keeping their personal and financial lives private? Where is the line between cyber security and individual privacy and what role do governments and corporations play in maintaining this delicate balance? The United States is not taking into account the far-reaching negative impact the changing definition of privacy is having on other states around the globe. Some countries are responding by considering data localization laws, and there is also a movement to give control of the Internet to the United Nations or to individual governments. There are also calls for reform to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA). T

How is cyber crime defined? What is a cyber threat? Google defines cyber crime as “crime conducted by the internet or some other computer network”. The definition from WhatIs.com is “any illegal activity that uses a computer as its primary means of commission.” The computer has simply become another tool for the commission of crimes. There is, however, no definition of cyber crime at the international level and no international judiciary to address the issue. Privacy remains defined at the state level only.

In the International Bar Association article, Cybercrime: fighting an international threat, I am quoted as saying companies are not cognizant of how vulnerable they are to rogue attacks or how to protect themselves.

Please see criminal defense blog or this entry on cyber crime.