[saber6]

> [...] as far as I can tell.

It appears the law in this case feels differently.

The owners claimed under legal penalty that they had certain assets (paying customers, needs for IP addressing, etc). These statements appear to have been completely false. Thus, the trial.

And yes, lying to ARIN (or any RIR) about your customer base (need for IPv4 addressing) is just plain crappy. IPv4 addressing is a common resource - a 32-bit fixed address space - similar in concept to physical frequency allocation by the FCC.

There are 4.2B IPv4 addresses (minus some for RFC1918 and MCAST, etc). To lay illegitimate claim to them is really wrong, and more importantly, legally risky now.

[ikeboy]

No, they were not charged for any of the things claimed to be crimes in the article.

The trial is about different alleged wrongdoings than OP is going on about.

[dragonwriter]

> No, they were not charged for any of the things claimed to be crimes in the article.

Both a fraudulent system of shell companies and knowingly profiting by enabling spam are alleged on the article, and both have been the subject of criminal charges against the firm and it's CEO. [0]

[0] https://krebsonsecurity.com/2019/05/a-tough-week-for-ip-addr...

[ikeboy]

>knowingly profiting by enabling spam

Your source doesn't say that. I read the indictment and it doesn't charge them for "knowingly profiting by enabling spam".

[ganoushoreilly]

There's also other cases with charges pending, as well as a nasty Divorce case.

[ikeboy]

What other charges are there?

[ganoushoreilly]

Last I heard, the Fbi is going after him separately for wire fraud against multiple banks.

[ikeboy]

The only criminal case I can find is the one from last May. Googling "fbi wire fraud amir golestan" doesn't turn up anything relating to wire fraud against banks, and searching courtlistener for his name only turns up civil cases and the same May case. Do you have any links? Or is this based on personal knowledge that isn't public yet?

[saber6]

You sound extremely defensive with regard to this article — to the point that I am speculating whether or not you have vested interest in shooting down legitimate commentary.

You have responded to multiple comments with baseless FUD-like claims.

To which I contend.....

I smell Astro-turf!!!

[ikeboy]

I have no relationship to any of the entities involved. I'm just pointing out how clueless OP is.

And I was somewhat taken aback at how much pushback I got based on people completely misreading the article. It's one thing to disagree with me over what exactly is legal, it's another to start asserting that the company itself was running spamming services in the absence of any evidence. That surprised me. The government hasn't asserted it, the OP doesn't assert it, I can't find that claim anywhere but this thread.

[saber6]

This entity was a known spam shop. It took a while but someone finally put together a model showing the (what were thought to be) hidden relationships.

Don’t defend fraud artists dude.

[ikeboy]

I'll defend whoever I like when someone makes incorrect claims.

Although here I'm mainly trying to clarify the law. People taking OP at face value will come away with a very incorrect impression of what's legal and not.

Also, OP didn't "put together a model" exposing hidden relationships. Every company they named was already in the indictment from last May.

[saber6]

You're arguing semantics. Don't defend fraud artists.