Ransomware Group Prosecution Case Studies
⚖️ Understanding Ransomware and Legal Framework
Ransomware is a type of malicious software that encrypts a victim’s data or systems and demands payment (usually in cryptocurrency) to restore access.
It is prosecuted under:
18 U.S.C. § 1030 – Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).
18 U.S.C. § 1956 & § 1957 – Money laundering statutes.
18 U.S.C. § 1343 – Wire fraud.
18 U.S.C. § 1201 – Extortion laws.
Conspiracy and identity theft laws.
Globally, prosecutions often involve cooperation between agencies like the FBI, Europol, Interpol, and Department of Justice (DOJ) due to the transnational nature of ransomware groups.
🧑⚖️ Case 1: United States v. Yaroslav Vasinskyi (REvil Ransomware, 2021)
Facts:
Yaroslav Vasinskyi, a Ukrainian national, was part of the REvil/Sodinokibi ransomware group, which targeted over 1,500 companies worldwide, including Kaseya, a U.S. IT firm. The attack encrypted thousands of servers, demanding a ransom of $70 million in Bitcoin.
Charges:
Conspiracy to commit fraud and damage to protected computers.
Intentional damage to protected computers.
Conspiracy to commit money laundering.
Ruling:
After his arrest in Poland and extradition to the U.S., Vasinskyi was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 1030 and § 1956. He pled guilty and agreed to cooperate with U.S. authorities.
Outcome:
15 years imprisonment (pending final sentencing as of 2024).
Forfeiture of over $6 million in cryptocurrency.
Significance:
Set a precedent that foreign ransomware attackers can be extradited and prosecuted in the U.S. under the CFAA.
🧑⚖️ Case 2: United States v. Yevgeniy Polyanin (REvil Ransomware, 2021)
Facts:
Yevgeniy Polyanin, a Russian national, was identified as a key operator and developer of REvil ransomware. He was behind hundreds of ransomware attacks on Texas local government systems and private businesses.
Charges:
Conspiracy to commit fraud.
Money laundering.
Intentional damage to computers.
Ruling:
Although Polyanin remained in Russia (no extradition treaty), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas indicted him in absentia and seized $6.1 million worth of assets linked to ransomware payments.
Significance:
Even without physical custody, U.S. prosecutors demonstrated asset seizure and public indictment as deterrents.
Legal Principle:
Cyber extortion has no safe jurisdiction — financial tracing and asset forfeiture can reach across borders.
🧑⚖️ Case 3: United States v. Mikhail Matveev (Hive, LockBit & Babuk Ransomware, 2023)
Facts:
Mikhail Matveev, also known by the aliases “Wazawaka” and “Boriselcin,” operated multiple ransomware variants (Hive, LockBit, Babuk). His operations targeted government agencies, hospitals, and schools in the U.S.
Charges:
Conspiracy to transmit ransom demands.
Intentional damage to computers.
Money laundering.
Ruling:
Indicted by the U.S. Department of Justice under 18 U.S.C. § 1030 & § 1956. He demanded over $400 million in ransom, with victims paying around $200 million.
Outcome:
Matveev was charged in absentia (believed to be in Russia), and a $10 million bounty was placed on his capture.
Significance:
This was one of the largest multi-ransomware indictments ever filed, showing how cybercriminals often operate multiple ransomware brands simultaneously.
🧑⚖️ Case 4: United States v. Mikhail Vasiliev (LockBit Ransomware, 2022–2024)
Facts:
Canadian national Mikhail Vasiliev participated in the LockBit ransomware group, which extorted businesses and public institutions worldwide. Law enforcement found the LockBit source code, ransom notes, and cryptocurrency wallets during his arrest.
Charges:
Conspiracy to damage protected computers.
Intentional transmission of ransomware.
Extortion using encryption malware.
Judgment:
Vasiliev pled guilty to five ransomware counts in Canadian court and was extradited to the U.S. for further prosecution.
Outcome:
Sentenced to almost 20 years imprisonment.
Ordered to pay restitution exceeding $8 million.
Importance:
Demonstrated that even dual citizens in allied nations can face extradition for ransomware charges.
🧑⚖️ Case 5: United States v. Viktor Zhorin & Denis Dubnikov (Ryuk Ransomware, 2022)
Facts:
Dubnikov, a Russian national, operated a crypto-exchange used to launder ransom payments from Ryuk ransomware attacks. He received Bitcoin from victims, converted it through mixers, and sent it to the main ransomware operators.
Charges:
Conspiracy to commit money laundering under 18 U.S.C. §1956.
Ruling:
Dubnikov was arrested in the Netherlands and extradited to the U.S. He pled guilty to laundering over $400,000 in ransom proceeds.
Outcome:
Sentenced to 3 years in prison and forfeited his cryptocurrency holdings.
Legal Significance:
This was one of the first successful prosecutions targeting a ransomware money launderer rather than a coder or deployer.
🧑⚖️ Case 6: United States v. Maksim Yakubets & Igor Turashev (Evil Corp / Dridex Ransomware, 2019)
Facts:
Yakubets and Turashev led Evil Corp, responsible for the Dridex malware that evolved into ransomware targeting banks and corporations worldwide. They stole over $100 million by encrypting systems and demanding ransom in Bitcoin.
Charges:
Conspiracy to commit computer fraud, wire fraud, and bank fraud.
Conspiracy to launder money.
Ruling:
Both were indicted under the CFAA and wire fraud statutes. The U.S. Treasury sanctioned them, freezing assets and banning any U.S. entity from financial dealings with them.
Outcome:
Although still at large in Russia, they face extradition requests and $5 million bounties.
Importance:
Set a standard for integrated prosecution (criminal + financial sanctions) to cripple ransomware operations.
⚖️ Key Legal Principles from These Cases
| Legal Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Global Jurisdiction | U.S. courts can prosecute foreign nationals whose ransomware affected U.S. victims. |
| Money Laundering = Ransomware Facilitation | Handling or converting ransom funds equals criminal participation. |
| No Safe Haven Rule | Even without extradition, indictments, and asset freezes ensure international exposure and deterrence. |
| Corporate Cooperation | Tech and crypto firms assist law enforcement in tracing transactions. |
| Hybrid Legal Action | Sanctions, indictments, and crypto seizure work together to dismantle ransomware ecosystems. |
🧩 Conclusion
Ransomware prosecutions demonstrate a global legal evolution — treating ransomware as organized transnational crime rather than isolated hacking.
The case studies (REvil, LockBit, Hive, Ryuk, Evil Corp) show:
Sophisticated coordination between nations (U.S., Canada, EU).
Increased asset recovery through crypto seizure.
A clear message that cybercriminals cannot hide behind national borders or anonymous wallets.
Courts now interpret ransomware as digital extortion under both cybercrime and financial crime statutes, ensuring that every role—from coder to money launderer—is prosecutable.
RELATED Blog
0 comments