> 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]
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
No, I'm not. OP is substantively wrong on their claims, not just semantically. The difference between illegal and legal is not semantic.
You're the one defending someone who's wrong.
Also, I'm not defending the fraud, but the (legality) of the parts of this that aren't fraudulent. I understand that you believe it's ok to smear anyone as long as they've done something else you dislike. I disagree.
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...