Information for Victims in Large Cases
|Case Name||Familiar Names and Terms||District or Division||Overview|
|U.S. vs. Brandon Bourrett and Athanasios Andrianakis||Photobucket, Photofucket, Brandon Bourret, Athanasios Andrianakis||USAO - Colorado||
Between July 2012 and August 2013, the defendants allegedly developed, marketed, and sold a software application called “Photofucket” which allowed unauthorized persons to circumvent the privacy settings of the image and video hosting website at Photobucket.com and to access and copy users’ private and password protected information, images, and videos without Photobucket or those users’ authorization.
|U.S. v. Dennis P. Farrell, et al, and related cases||Dennis P. Farrell, William E. Tis, Charles E. Herzing, Gary Southern, Freedom Industries, Inc., Michael E. Burdette, Robert J. Reynolds||USAO - West Virginia, Southern||
Freedom Industries, Inc. as well as former corporate officers, employees and agents, allegedly violated environmental laws in connection with the January 9, 2014, chemical spill. One defendant also faces additional charges stemming from bankruptcy proceedings related to the spill. Pending charges are merely accusations and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
|United States v. Max Joseph Chilson, et. al.||Resorts Condos Management, Timeshare Goldline, JAMS Management, Vision Ventures Inc, Timeshare Services Today, Vacation Equity Marketing Inc., Maximum Properties, Universal Processing Services of Wisconsin LLC also known as Newtek Merchant Solutions, HES Merchant Services, Interval Equity Marketing, Vacations And Resorts, Visionary Investments LLC||USAO - Texas, Northern||
Between March 2009 and March 2011, the defendants allegedly engaged in a scheme to fraudulently induce timeshare property owners to send them money. The telemarketers obtained lists containing contact information for timeshare property owners (victims) and during the telemarketing telephone call to the victim, promised buyers for their timeshares. To consummate the promised sale of the property, the telemarketer instructed the victim to pay “closing costs” for the sale, usually between $900 to $3,000. Once the victim sent the money, either by check, credit card, or wire transfer, the telemarketer or customer service representative would make excuses and delay the promised “closing” for approximately 90 days, so as to prevent the victim from successfully stopping payment on the check or obtaining a charge back on the credit card.
|United States v. Aleksandr Andreevich Panin, a/k/a Harderman, a/k/a Gribodemon, and Hamza Bendelladj, a/k/a Bx1||SpyEye malware||USAO - Georgia, Northern||
SpyEye is a sophisticated malicious computer code designed to automate the theft of confidential personal and financial information, such as online banking credentials, credit card information, usernames, passwords, PINs, and other personally identifying information. SpyEye facilitates this theft of information by secretly infecting victims’ computers, enabling cyber criminals to remotely control the infected computers (or bots) through command and control (C2) servers. Once the victims’ computers are infected and under control, cyber criminals remotely access the infected computers, without authorization, and steal the victims’ personal and financial information through a variety of techniques, including web injects, keystroke loggers, and credit card grabbers. The victims’ stolen personal and financial data is then surreptitiously transmitted to C2 servers, where it is used to steal money from the victims’ financial accounts. Until dismantled, SpyEye was the preeminent malware banking Trojan from 2010-2012.
|United States vs. Brian C. Rose, et al.||New Century Coal||USAO - Tennessee, Eastern||
Brian C. Rose, acting through the defendants and others, diverted funds received from New Century Coal investors to multiple entities which were represented to investors as legitimate vendors or suppliers to New Century Coal. New Century Coal falsely and fraudulently moved investor funds to bank accounts in the name of ghost vendor companies and diverted those funds to the personal benefit and use of the defendants.
|U.S. v. Bernard L.Madoff and Related Cases||Ernica Cotellessa-Pitz, Frank DePascali, Jr., David Friehling, Eric Lipkin||USAO - New York, Southern||
Criminal information was filed in Manhattan federal court chargin Bernard L. Madoff with eleven felony charges including securities fraud, investment adviser fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud, three counts of money laundering.
|U.S. v. Thomas Anderson Bowdoin, Jr. (a/k/a Andy Bowdoin)||AdSurfDaily, Inc., ASD, Andy Bowdoin||USAO - District of Columbia||
The indictment alleges that from in or around August 2006 through in or around August 2008, Bowdoin operated a "Ponzi" scheme through a company
|U.S. v. Jeanne Maher||Studio Pay, Studio Traffic, Studio Rocks||USAO - New York, Northern||
Studio Traffic was an organization that represented itself to be an investment mechanism whereby members could open an account by depositing money with Studio Traffic and thereafter earn a return on their investment. Rather, Studio Traffic redistributed funds from other members to provide the appearance that profit was being credited to member accounts.
|U.S. v. Obozokhae||Smoke Shop and Accessories, Emily Obozokhae||Criminal Division||
From February 2005 through October 2007, the defendant operated Smoke Shop and Accessories which conducted money transfer transactions. Counterfeit checks were mailed to individuals who were advised to cash and wire a portion of the proceeds to a third party. The wired monies were then intercepted and used for the defendant’s personal use.
|U.S. v. Jeffrey K. Skilling||Jeffrey Skilling, Enron, Kenneth Lay||Criminal Division||Skilling and other Enron executives engaged in a scheme to deceive the investing public, the SEC and others about the true performance of Enron’s businesses. The scheme was designed to make it appear that Enron was growing at a healthy and predictable rate, that Enron was comprised of a number of successful business units, and that the company had an appropriate cash flow. It had the effect of inflating artificially Enron’s stock price, and artificially stemming the decline of the stock during the first three quarters of 2001. The fraud scheme eventually unraveled and Enron filed for bankruptcy in December 2001, making its stock virtually worthless.|