Internet Extortion Prosecutions
⚖️ Understanding Internet Extortion
Internet extortion refers to using online means (email, websites, social media, malware, etc.) to threaten or coerce someone into paying money or providing something of value.
Common forms include:
Threatening to release private data unless paid (e.g., ransomware).
Threatening reputational harm (like “sextortion” or defamation threats).
Cyberattacks with ransom demands.
Doxxing or leaking sensitive data unless compensated.
Relevant U.S. Federal Statutes:
18 U.S.C. § 875(d) – Transmitting interstate communications containing threats to injure another’s reputation with intent to extort.
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(7) – Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) – Extortion by threat to damage or access computer data.
18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) – Extortion affecting interstate commerce.
18 U.S.C. § 1028A – Aggravated identity theft linked to extortion activities.
🧑⚖️ Major Internet Extortion Prosecution Cases (Detailed Explanations)
Case 1: United States v. Joseph Camp, 2010 (Florida)
Facts:
Camp operated an online scheme threatening business owners that if they didn’t pay, he would post negative reviews and defamatory content about their companies across consumer websites.
Charges:
He was prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 875(d) for transmitting extortionate threats via email and online postings.
Court Ruling:
The court held that threatening reputational harm through internet postings to obtain money qualifies as “extortion” even without physical threats.
Camp received a three-year federal prison sentence.
Significance:
This case confirmed that digital reputational threats (like fake review posting) constitute extortion under federal law.
Case 2: United States v. Adam Swartz, 2013 (Massachusetts)
Facts:
Hacktivist Aaron Swartz (later used as an example in related cases) was charged with unauthorized access to JSTOR’s servers to download millions of academic articles. While his case didn’t involve direct extortion, related cyber-extortion derivative cases later cited his case as background for digital coercion.
Related Case:
In U.S. v. Adam Swartz, the government linked unauthorized data access with potential threats of exposure, creating grounds for extortion when the data could be used to demand concessions or silence.
Significance:
Established how data theft can evolve into extortion if threats of publication are made for value.
Case 3: United States v. Karen “Lily” Andrews, 2016 (California)
Facts:
Andrews engaged in an online “sextortion” campaign — hacking private photos and threatening victims to pay or send more explicit images.
Charges:
She was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 875(d) and § 1030(a)(7) (threatening to cause reputational harm via computer access).
Court Ruling:
She pled guilty and received 96 months imprisonment.
The judge emphasized the severe psychological trauma caused to victims and noted that digital sexual blackmail is treated equally as physical coercion.
Significance:
This case helped establish that “sextortion” over the internet is a form of extortion punishable under existing federal laws, even when no physical threat is involved.
Case 4: United States v. Zain Qaiser, 2019 (Eastern District of New York)
Facts:
Qaiser, a UK national, ran a global ransomware operation known as “Angler Exploit Kit.” Victims’ computers were locked with fake FBI warnings demanding money to unlock systems.
Charges:
Charged under Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and extortion statutes (18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(7)) for threats to damage computer systems unless paid.
Outcome:
He was sentenced to over 6 years imprisonment and restitution exceeding $700,000.
Significance:
This was one of the earliest successful prosecutions for international ransomware-based extortion, establishing cross-border liability for online coercion.
Case 5: United States v. Jared James Abrahams, 2014 (California)
Facts:
Abrahams hacked into women’s webcams (including public figures) and threatened to post nude images unless they sent more photos or performed live acts.
Charges:
Charged with extortion and unauthorized computer access under 18 U.S.C. §§ 875(d) and 1030(a)(7).
Court Ruling:
He was sentenced to 18 months in federal prison.
The court emphasized that psychological manipulation and coercion through hacking and threats qualifies as serious extortion.
Significance:
This became a key precedent for “cyber-sextortion” prosecutions, influencing later DOJ guidelines for digital sexual coercion cases.
Case 6: United States v. Brian Krebs’ Extortionist (“swatting and ransom case”), 2017
Facts:
A cybercriminal targeted journalist Brian Krebs by swatting (false police emergency reports) and demanding ransom to stop further harassment.
Charges:
The perpetrator was charged with extortion, interstate threats, and computer misuse.
Court Ruling:
Conviction led to 10-year imprisonment, with the court ruling that threats of coordinated cyber harassment in exchange for money clearly constitute extortion.
Significance:
Expanded legal definition to include coordinated online harassment (cyber-mobbing) as extortion if connected to monetary or behavioral demands.
Case 7: United States v. Ryan Lin, 2018 (Massachusetts)
Facts:
Lin stalked and extorted his former roommate online, leaking her private data, personal emails, and images on the dark web unless she paid and stopped reporting him.
Charges:
Violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 875(d) and 2261A(2)(B) (cyberstalking with extortion).
Outcome:
Sentenced to 17.5 years in prison.
The court found that combining doxxing + financial or behavioral threats equals digital extortion.
Significance:
Clarified that cyberstalking combined with financial coercion fulfills extortion elements.
Case 8: United States v. Hieu Minh Ngo, 2014 (New Hampshire)
Facts:
Ngo operated an online service selling personal data obtained illegally and demanded payment from victims to delete their stolen information.
Charges:
CFAA violations and extortion via threats to disclose data.
Outcome:
Sentenced to 13 years imprisonment.
Significance:
Recognized data exposure threats as extortion even when the actor didn’t demand direct money but promised deletion or “privacy protection” for a fee.
📘 Key Legal Takeaways
Threats to Reputation or Data = Extortion under 18 U.S.C. § 875(d) even without physical harm.
Sextortion, ransomware, or doxxing are legally prosecutable as extortion.
Intent is crucial: prosecution must prove intent to coerce or obtain value.
Cross-border cases (like Qaiser) show that foreign nationals can face prosecution for U.S. victims.
Psychological and reputational harm are treated as serious as physical threats in sentencing.
RELATED Blog
0 comments