Foreign Interference Criminal Cases In Elections
⚖️ Legal Framework: Foreign Interference in U.S. Elections
Key laws used in prosecutions include:
18 U.S.C. § 371 – Conspiracy to defraud the United States
18 U.S.C. § 1030 – Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)
Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) – Requires individuals lobbying for foreign governments to register
Campaign Finance Laws – Prohibit foreign nationals from contributing to U.S. elections
18 U.S.C. § 951 – Acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign government
18 U.S.C. § 1028A – Aggravated identity theft
🇷🇺 Case 1: United States v. Internet Research Agency et al. (2018)
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Background: The Internet Research Agency (IRA), a Russian “troll farm,” and 13 Russian nationals were indicted for interfering in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
Conduct:
Created fake U.S. social media accounts impersonating Americans
Promoted divisive content and organized political rallies
Spent thousands of dollars on political ads
Charges:
Conspiracy to defraud the U.S. (18 U.S.C. § 371)
Wire fraud
Identity theft
Outcome:
Indictments secured, but defendants remained in Russia and did not appear in U.S. court
The case was symbolic, showing the DOJ’s capacity to trace foreign influence operations
Significance:
Landmark case that formally accused a foreign entity of meddling in U.S. elections
Helped shape policy discussions on social media regulation and election security
🇷🇺 Case 2: United States v. Viktor Netyksho et al. (GRU Hackers) (2018)
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Background: 12 Russian military intelligence officers (GRU) were indicted for hacking the DNC, DCCC, and Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
Conduct:
Used spear-phishing attacks to steal emails
Released data through "DCLeaks" and "Guccifer 2.0"
Coordinated leaks with WikiLeaks to disrupt the 2016 election
Charges:
Conspiracy to commit computer fraud (CFAA)
Aggravated identity theft
Money laundering using cryptocurrency
Outcome:
Defendants remained fugitives in Russia
Provided detailed attribution to a foreign government’s cyber-interference
Significance:
First criminal case directly implicating Russian military officers in cyber operations targeting U.S. elections
Served as a foundation for U.S. counterintelligence responses
🇷🇺 Case 3: United States v. Konstantin Kilimnik (2018)
Jurisdiction: D.C. District Court (part of Mueller probe)
Background: Kilimnik, a Russian-Ukrainian political consultant, was accused of having ties to Russian intelligence and passing polling data from Paul Manafort (Trump’s 2016 campaign chairman).
Conduct:
Coordinated with Paul Manafort during the 2016 campaign
Allegedly shared sensitive polling data with Russian operatives
Charges:
Obstruction of justice
Conspiracy to obstruct
Outcome:
Indicted but remains at large outside the U.S.
Significance:
Highlighted possible collusion efforts between a U.S. campaign official and a Russian agent
Raised concerns over foreign intelligence collecting data to influence voter targeting
🇺🇸 Case 4: United States v. Paul Manafort (2018)
Jurisdiction: Eastern District of Virginia and D.C.
Background: Trump’s 2016 campaign chairman was prosecuted not for direct election interference, but for undisclosed lobbying for foreign governments and financial crimes linked to foreign political work.
Conduct:
Failed to register under FARA for work on behalf of pro-Russian Ukrainian interests
Committed bank fraud, tax evasion, and obstruction of justice
Charges:
Tax fraud, bank fraud
FARA violations
Obstruction
Outcome:
Convicted and sentenced to over 7 years in prison
Later pardoned by President Trump in December 2020
Significance:
Showed how foreign influence may infiltrate U.S. political campaigns indirectly via corrupt intermediaries
Led to increased calls for stricter FARA enforcement
🇨🇳 Case 5: United States v. Li "Catherine" Wang (2020)
Jurisdiction: Eastern District of New York
Background: Wang, linked to a Chinese government-backed group, attempted to funnel foreign money into state and local U.S. elections, violating federal campaign finance law.
Conduct:
Made illegal contributions using U.S. straw donors
Intended to influence policy at the local level
Charges:
Conspiracy to violate campaign finance laws
False statements
Outcome:
Pleaded guilty, received probation and fine
Significance:
Demonstrated that foreign interference isn’t limited to national elections
Sparked concerns over China’s efforts to build political influence through donations
🇷🇺 Case 6: United States v. Elena Khusyaynova (2018)
Jurisdiction: Eastern District of Virginia
Background: Khusyaynova was the alleged chief accountant of “Project Lakhta,” a Russian influence operation targeting both 2016 and 2018 U.S. elections.
Conduct:
Managed millions of dollars in funding for online influence campaigns
Targeted divisive topics like gun rights, immigration, and racial tension
Charges:
Conspiracy to defraud the United States
Outcome:
Indicted; remains outside U.S. jurisdiction
Significance:
One of the few cases addressing ongoing interference beyond the 2016 election
Emphasized long-term, sustained efforts to influence public opinion via disinformation
📊 Summary Table
| Case | Country | Defendant(s) | Charges | Outcome | Key Impact |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Internet Research Agency | Russia | 13 individuals, IRA | Conspiracy, wire fraud, ID theft | Indicted (no arrests) | Social media-based disinformation |
| GRU Hackers (Netyksho et al.) | Russia | 12 military officers | Computer fraud, ID theft | Indicted (no arrests) | Direct cyberattack on political infrastructure |
| Konstantin Kilimnik | Russia/Ukraine | Kilimnik | Obstruction, conspiracy | Indicted (fugitive) | Data sharing with Russian intelligence |
| Paul Manafort | USA (foreign work) | Manafort | FARA, fraud | Convicted, later pardoned | Failure to disclose foreign influence |
| Li Wang | China | Wang | Campaign finance, false statements | Guilty plea | China’s local political influence effort |
| Elena Khusyaynova | Russia | Khusyaynova | Conspiracy | Indicted (fugitive) | Long-term financial coordination of propaganda |
🧠 Key Legal Takeaways
Conspiracies under 18 U.S.C. § 371 are a primary tool for prosecuting coordinated foreign interference.
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) is crucial for hacking-related cases.
The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) is underused but increasingly relevant.
Election finance laws are enforced when foreign nationals funnel money into U.S. campaigns through intermediaries.
Prosecutions often occur in absentia due to geopolitical limitations in extraditing suspects from Russia or China.
🧭 Conclusion
The U.S. government has pursued a range of legal strategies to prosecute foreign interference in elections, from targeting cyber actors and propagandists to domestic intermediaries and campaign operatives. These cases emphasize:
The broad reach of U.S. law in protecting electoral integrity
Challenges in prosecuting foreign nationals not present in U.S. jurisdiction
Importance of inter-agency collaboration (DOJ, FBI, DHS, intelligence community)
Together, these cases form the legal backbone of U.S. defenses against foreign election threats—and serve as cautionary tales for both domestic and foreign actors attempting to subvert democratic processes.
RELATED Blog
0 comments