Cyber Fraud Prosecutions Under Us Law

๐Ÿ” What Is Cyber Fraud?

Cyber fraud involves using the internet or digital technology to commit deception for unlawful financial gain. It's prosecuted under various federal laws, most notably:

Key U.S. Laws Used:

18 U.S.C. ยง 1030 โ€“ Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)

18 U.S.C. ยง 1028A โ€“ Aggravated Identity Theft

18 U.S.C. ยง 1343 โ€“ Wire Fraud

18 U.S.C. ยง 1344 โ€“ Bank Fraud

18 U.S.C. ยง 2511 โ€“ Illegal Interception of Communications

The USA PATRIOT Act โ€“ for crimes with international elements

๐Ÿ“š Detailed Case Law (More Than Five Cases)

1. United States v. Morris (1991)

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Facts:
Robert Tappan Morris created the first internet worm, which unintentionally damaged thousands of computers.

Issue:
Whether launching a self-replicating worm violated the CFAA.

Ruling:
Morris was convicted under the CFAA for unauthorized access causing damage.

Significance:
First major cybercrime prosecution under CFAA. Set precedent that even indirect damage from unauthorized access is punishable.

2. United States v. Mitnick (1999)

Court: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Facts:
Kevin Mitnick hacked into multiple networks, stole proprietary software, and cloned cell phones.

Issue:
Whether using social engineering and phone network access violated wire fraud and CFAA statutes.

Ruling:
Mitnick pleaded guilty to seven felony charges and served time.

Significance:
Became a symbolic case of hacking and cyber fraud in the 1990s. Highlighted social engineering as a criminal tool.

3. United States v. Aleksey Belan (Indicted 2012, Unsealed 2014)

Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Facts:
Belan, a Russian hacker, breached major U.S. companies and stole millions of user credentials.

Issue:
Theft of personal data for profit, and resale on dark web markets.

Ruling:
He was indicted for CFAA, wire fraud, and identity theft; still a fugitive.

Significance:
One of the first cyber fraud prosecutions involving dark web data sales.

4. United States v. Hutchins (2017)

Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
Facts:
Marcus Hutchins, known for stopping the WannaCry ransomware, was charged for earlier involvement in creating the Kronos banking malware.

Issue:
Whether creating and selling malware that steals banking credentials constitutes wire fraud and computer crime.

Ruling:
Hutchins pleaded guilty and cooperated; he was sentenced without prison time.

Significance:
Showed how malware development and distribution can trigger serious charges even if later actions are heroic.

5. United States v. Abagnale (Historical, but relevant)

Court: U.S. Courts (multiple)
Facts:
Frank Abagnale (made famous by Catch Me If You Can) used forged checks, false identities, and impersonation โ€” now often done digitally.

Relevance to cyber fraud:
Modern digital fraudsters often replicate his methods using phishing, fake websites, and email spoofing instead of paper checks.

Significance:
Though pre-digital, his behavior mirrors cyber fraud tactics โ€” using deception and identity manipulation to steal.

6. United States v. Cosmo (2013)

Court: U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
Facts:
Cosmo ran an international phishing and fraud ring that targeted U.S. banks and individuals via email and fake websites.

Issue:
Phishing and social engineering as cyber fraud, involving multiple co-conspirators.

Ruling:
Cosmo was sentenced to 13 years in prison for wire fraud and ID theft.

Significance:
Set an example for email-based phishing scams being punished under wire fraud and conspiracy laws.

7. United States v. Alam (2021)

Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
Facts:
Alam used ransomware to lock company files and demand cryptocurrency payments.

Issue:
Ransomware as extortion and cyber fraud; CFAA and wire fraud charges.

Ruling:
Convicted and sentenced under multiple fraud and hacking laws.

Significance:
Confirmed that ransomware attacks fall squarely within fraud and computer abuse laws.

8. United States v. Love (2016)

Court: U.S. District Court, extradition proceedings (UK to US)
Facts:
Lauri Love allegedly hacked U.S. government computers, including NASA and the Army.

Issue:
Whether cross-border hacking with intent to steal and disrupt constitutes prosecutable fraud.

Outcome:
U.S. sought extradition; UK courts blocked it. Case raised jurisdictional concerns.

Significance:
Raised questions about international cybercrime prosecution and extradition.

๐Ÿ”‘ Key Legal Takeaways

CFAA is the main weapon: Prosecutors use the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act for unauthorized access, damage, or fraud.

Wire fraud laws apply when deceit involves interstate communications (e.g., emails or digital signals).

Intent to defraud is essential: Accidental harm without intent may avoid criminal liability.

Digital evidence is central: IP logs, server records, and email trails are standard forms of proof.

Cross-border challenges exist, but international cooperation is growing.

Modern crimes mirror old ones: Forgery, theft, impersonation โ€” now done online โ€” are still punished under traditional fraud laws.

LEAVE A COMMENT

0 comments