Robocall Scam Prosecutions
1. United States v. Adrian Abramovich (2017, California)
Facts: Abramovich operated a robocall operation that targeted seniors with fake “tax relief” and debt relief offers, convincing victims to pay fees.
Legal Issue: Wire fraud, mail fraud, and violation of the TCPA.
Prosecution: Federal authorities traced thousands of robocalls to his operation, documenting financial losses suffered by victims. Subpoenas and call records were used as evidence.
Outcome: Abramovich was sentenced to 5 years in federal prison and ordered to pay over $4 million in restitution. The case highlighted the targeting of vulnerable populations.
2. United States v. Seth Aaron Ingram (2018, New Jersey)
Facts: Ingram used an automated robocall system to promote fake “free government grants” to elderly Americans, requiring personal information and upfront fees.
Legal Issue: Wire fraud, identity theft, and TCPA violations.
Prosecution: Investigators traced call patterns, recorded scripts, and analyzed financial transactions linked to victims.
Outcome: Ingram received 7 years in prison and restitution payments to victims exceeding $3.2 million.
3. United States v. Justin Tucker (2019, Florida)
Facts: Tucker orchestrated a robocall campaign offering phony tech support, convincing victims to grant remote access to their computers and pay fake repair fees.
Legal Issue: Wire fraud, computer fraud, and TCPA violations.
Prosecution: Authorities monitored call centers and recovered digital records from call software and bank accounts. Victims testified regarding financial loss and emotional distress.
Outcome: Tucker was sentenced to 6 years in federal prison and ordered to pay $2.8 million in restitution.
4. United States v. Michael Coscia (2018, Illinois)
Facts: Coscia’s operation involved automated robocalls and spoofing numbers to appear legitimate, targeting consumers with fake warranty scams.
Legal Issue: Mail and wire fraud, TCPA violations, and conspiracy.
Prosecution: Evidence included call logs, payment records, and scripts showing deception. Authorities also demonstrated that calls were intentionally spoofed to evade detection.
Outcome: Coscia received 4 years in prison and restitution to victims. The case illustrated how spoofing compounds liability under robocall fraud laws.
5. United States v. David Alexander (2020, Texas)
Facts: Alexander ran a robocall scam offering fake student loan forgiveness programs, demanding upfront fees from borrowers.
Legal Issue: Wire fraud, mail fraud, and violations of the TCPA.
Prosecution: Federal prosecutors collected evidence through call tracing, banking records, and victim interviews. Authorities coordinated with the FTC.
Outcome: Alexander was sentenced to 8 years in prison and ordered to pay restitution of $5.1 million.
6. United States v. Wei Li (2019, New York)
Facts: Wei Li targeted small businesses with robocalls claiming the business owed back taxes and needed to pay immediately to avoid penalties.
Legal Issue: Wire fraud, TCPA violations, and conspiracy to commit fraud.
Prosecution: Law enforcement analyzed call records, IP addresses, and financial transactions. Victims testified about financial and emotional harm.
Outcome: Li was sentenced to 6.5 years in federal prison with restitution of $2.6 million.
7. United States v. Paul T. Meyer (2016, California)
Facts: Meyer ran a robocall operation offering fake “health insurance” and “life savings” plans, targeting elderly victims nationwide.
Legal Issue: Wire fraud, TCPA violations, and mail fraud.
Prosecution: FBI and FTC jointly investigated using call records, digital logs, and victim testimony.
Outcome: Meyer received 7 years in federal prison and restitution of $3.8 million, demonstrating how targeting seniors is a key aggravating factor in sentencing.
Key Takeaways from Robocall Scam Prosecutions
Legal Basis: Violations of TCPA, wire fraud, mail fraud, and conspiracy statutes are commonly used to prosecute robocall scams.
Penalties: Criminal sentences often range from 4–8 years in prison, with restitution in millions of dollars.
Targeting Vulnerable Groups: Seniors and small businesses are frequent victims, increasing the severity of penalties.
Evidence Collection: Investigators use call logs, scripts, IP addresses, bank records, and victim testimony.
Federal and FTC Collaboration: Prosecutions often involve coordination between the FBI, DOJ, and Federal Trade Commission.
RELATED Blog
0 comments