[dragonwriter]

> It says they responded to subpoenas for each entity.

It says that when a parent company agent was in possession of a warrant addressed to the parent company at the location of one of the fraudulent “Channel Partners” they were ordered to interact with law enforcement as if they were exclusively an agent of the “Channel Partner”.

Now, I suppose that could be argued to not be primarily intended to evade compliance with the warrant but instead to maintain the fraud of the independence of the “Channel Partners”, but either way it's a deliberate act in furtherance of a crime that could be separately prosecuted.

[ikeboy]

>the fraud of the independence of the “Channel Partners”

You still don't get it. The fraud was submitting false documentation to ARIN. Operating multiple shell companies is perfectly legal, as long as you don't submit false sworn affidavits and otherwise lie in the course of your activities.

Responding to a subpoena as the entity it was sent to isn't lying. It says there was one occasion where the subpoena had both Micfo and a channel partners' info on it, and he says he wasn't permitted to reach out to LEO to clarify.

Regardless, it's not an act "in furtherance of a crime" - the crime was committed at the point they obtained the IP addresses.

[dragonwriter]

> Operating multiple shell companies is perfectly legal

Sure, what's not is:

Having the registered principals of those shell companies be fictitious (as in this case).

Having agents of your company who have received a warrant addressed to your company pretend that your company has not received it, whether the purpose is to evade the warrant or to avoid drawing attention to your fraudulent front companiest (as, again, in this case.)

> Responding to a subpoena as the entity it was sent to isn't lying.

A subpoena or warrant is a command. Receiving it and not obeying the command fully is a crime.

> It says there was one occasion where the subpoena had both Micfo and a channel partners' info on

No, it says a warrant was addressed to Micfo but received by Micfo employees at the “Channel Partner”. It does not say it has both companies info on it. Even if it did, directing employees to pretend your firm has not received a court order naming your firm when in fact your firm has received it is not legal.

> Regardless, it's not an act "in furtherance of a crime" - the crime was committed at the point they obtained the IP addresses.

If the intent was to preserve the illusion of the distinct identity of the channel partners tonorent discovery of the fraud, it absolutely was an act in furtherance of the crime, and a knowing participant (that is, knowing of the purpose, not just the act itself) in it would, even if they had no other connection to the concealed crime, be an accessory after the fact.

[ikeboy]

>Having agents of your company who have received a warrant addressed to your company pretend that your company has not received it, whether the purpose is to evade the warrant or to avoid drawing attention to your fraudulent front companiest (as, again, in this case.)

It never says they pretended not to receive it, or that they didn't obey the "command" fully. If they had not obeyed any subpoenas, I assume they would have been charged with doing so.

> It does not say it has both companies info on it. Even if it did, directing employees to pretend your firm has not received a court order naming your firm when in fact your firm has received it is not legal.

It says it was sent to the Channel Partner - it's not clear how but I assume it came through an email to the Channel Partner.

"Even if it did, directing employees to pretend your firm has not received a court order naming your firm when in fact your firm has received it is not legal."

I don't understand your theory where responding to a subpoena and signing it as one entity is "pretending" you haven't received a court order.

We'll have to agree to disagree on whether the set of facts in OP represents a crime. But even if so, it remains the case that everything described in OP, if it happened at a company that hadn't committed fraud but was using shell companies legitimately, would have been perfectly legal.