675k Stolen Credit Cards = Ten Years In Jail 204
wiredmikey writes "A hacker who had been found with more than 675,000 stolen credit card numbers that reportedly led to losses totaling more than $36 million, was sentenced on Friday to 120 months in prison. After pleading guilty on April 21, 2011, Rogelio Hackett Jr., 25, of Lithonia, Georgia, was slapped with a maximum prison sentence and ordered to pay a $100,000 fine. According to court documents, U.S. Secret Service special agents executing a search warrant in 2009 at Hackett's home found more than 675,000 stolen credit card numbers and related information in his computers and email accounts. Hackett admitted in a court filing that since at least 2002, he has been trafficking in credit card information he obtained either by hacking into business computer networks and downloading credit card databases, or purchasing the information from others using the Internet through various carding forums."
Sounds about right. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sounds about right. (Score:4, Insightful)
That's up to 675,000 people he's hurt, so he gets less than two years per hundred thousand people.
On the one hand, that seems really freaking low. On the other, more time won't necessarily help anyone--it won't make him less likely to commit crimes in the future, and the deterrent effect probably isn't great.
Also, there were people at Nuremberg who got ten years, so going much higher than that would be comparatively high by that standard.
Re:Sounds about right. (Score:5, Insightful)
More properly, he hurt a few banks which insist on a system with virtually no security whatsoever. They then passed the hurt on to up to 675,000 people rather than fixing the problem.
That certainly doesn't make him less guilty, it just makes him the only one who's going to pay for it.
Re:Sounds about right. (Score:5, Insightful)
He didn't hurt the banks. The banks will pass the loss on to the clients in the form of higher rates. Which is unfortunate because as long as banks can just buy their way out for cheap they aren't likely to invest in the kinds of security necessary to make things more challenging for crooks.
Re: (Score:2)
Like I said, the banks quickly passed the hurt on.
Re: (Score:2)
The banks will pass the loss on to the clients in the form of higher rates.
Nope. Banks respond to supply and demand, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or they just claim it from their insurance companies?
Re: (Score:3)
Where did you get the banks involved in this?
He obtained either by hacking into business computer networks and downloading credit card databases. (If you won't read the article at least read the summary).
The banks, while vulnerable enough, are the least of the problem. The corner grocery, the power company, newspaper, ebay, and any other place from which you routinely purchase are the ones with lax security.
And while its fun to rail at banks, remember that the US DOD was hacked by a bunch of kids. The pr
Re: (Score:2)
We have known for 3 decades how to create a card (either cash or credit) where simply knowing the number and name on it is absolutely useless, but the banks refuse to implement them. As long as they insist of a screwed up system where the number is both ID and authentication, this will remain a problem. For example, a smart card can cryptographically sign a plaintext transaction handed to it by a POS terminal. At that point, it hardly matters if it is broadcast to the world.
The merchants are stuck working w
Re: (Score:3)
The majority of credit cards stolen are not from terminal swipes, but rather on-line purchases, especially repetitive on-line purchases
such as routine bill payment where the merchant needs to retain the card info for subsequent billings. (Gas, electricity, news paper, web purchases, etc).
Cartographic signing at a pos terminal is not an option. Further POS sales generally go directly to the payments processor and never even need stop at the mom-and-pop grocer.
The number is not both ID and authentication. (
Re: (Score:2)
The majority of credit cards stolen are not from terminal swipes, but rather on-line purchases, especially repetitive on-line purchases such as routine bill payment where the merchant needs to retain the card info for subsequent billings. (Gas, electricity, news paper, web purchases, etc).
So what you're saying is people need to be able to sign text based transaction records through their browser and need to be able to sign standing transaction orders (that specify a max amount, to what account, and how often). All ancient news, all easily done.
Cartographic signing at a pos terminal is not an option. Further POS sales generally go directly to the payments processor and never even need stop at the mom-and-pop grocer.
So the problem is lax security at the mom'n'pop (your claim) but the card data need never stop there so it's not a problem (also your claim)? HUH? I'm sorry but you'll either have to pick one or show me how Schrodinger got involved.
Short of a merchant specific CC numbers, (which are available from some credit card companies) there is no way to allow repetitive payments without retention of card data by the merchant.
Or, as I said, signe
Re: (Score:3)
But this theft did not involve the card itself. It involved data files from corporate computers.
Short of a merchant specific CC numbers, (which are available from some credit card companies) there is no way to allow repetitive payments without retention of card data by the merchant.
Not just repetitive payments, but refund processing as well. There is some hope - some payment processors are handling the online payments directly and giving the merchants API's to do some secure payments. Look up 'tokenizati
Re: (Score:2)
More properly, he hurt a few banks which insist on a system with virtually no security whatsoever. They then passed the hurt on to up to 675,000 people rather than fixing the problem.
That certainly doesn't make him less guilty, it just makes him the only one who's going to pay for it.
I don't think enough people fully appreciate both sides of the security/convenience scale on this one.
They need to keep credit cards about as easy to use as cash.
The banks are not ignorant of the risks. If you don't like it use cash and throw away your debit cards for credit cards & ATM cards. Or walk into your bank, make cash withdrawals and go that route. Hell, just keep cash under your mattress if you really hate the economy.
Re: (Score:3)
That doesn't exactly put me in the clear. I am still subject to "identity theft". That is, a bank allows itself to be defrauded of a fair bit of credit and comes after me for it without a single shred of proof that I agreed to anything. Because of their contract terms with retailers, I still get to subsidize the percentage they take for credit transactions even when I pay cash (they forbid the merchant from passing the credit transaction cost to the patron, so they have to hike the price for everyone to cov
Re: (Score:2)
That's up to 675,000 people he's hurt...
He stole from credit card companies, not individuals. You're not liable for credit card fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
Your credit will be fucked up by a fraudulent fifty dollar charge?
Re: (Score:2)
no people were harmed in this crime.. banks are on the hook for fraudulent charges (for electronic transactions).
http://www.federalreserve.gov/bankinforeg/regecg.htm [federalreserve.gov]
Section 205.6 Liability of consumer for unauthorized transfers
Limits a consumer's liability for unauthorized electronic fund transfers, such as those arising from loss or theft of an access device, to $50; if the consumer fails to notify the depository institution in a timely fashion, the amount may be $500 or unlimited.
my bank called me for a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now that they have a conviction, they could have each BANK file separate charges. Cards are owned by banks, each separate bank and jurisdiction should be able to charge him separately.. As THEY are the wronged parties with hundreds of cards each. That would add just ONE year per bank... Or potentially 100's of CONSECUTIVE 1-2 year terms on top of the ten.
Frankly, it's time for the law to "step aside" in these cases intil people learn not to do this. O think it's time to bring back public corporal punishment
Re: (Score:2)
That's up to 675,000 people he's hurt,
No. That's up to all of us.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sounds about right. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
You are not paying attention to who is victimizing who. You do not control information about you and you cannot control information about you. Information about you is traded and shared commercially all over the world. Our credit systems rely on the belief that information about you is a secret. Do you see a problem with this yet?
Okay, so now, when people come to you to pay bills you don't owe, it is the SYSTEM that is victimizing you, not the fraudsters who took advantage of a horrible system.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you, at least 80% - maybe even a bit more. I can't remember the last time anyone even ATTEMPTED to ascertain that I actually had a right to use a credit card. I've let the wife use mine, and I've used hers. No one asks. The card has a woman's name of it, and I'm obviously male - but no one bats an eye.
Yes, the vendors are as guilty as anyone, for making no attempt to check the identity of the card user.
Re:Sounds about right. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, nothing about the credit card system relies on the belief that the information about you is a secret.
With all due respect to your anti-credit card mentality, most of us get them for convenience, not to remain anonymous or secretive.
We are not victimized by the people we do business with via our cards. We enter into those agreements with full knowledge
that we expect X amount of money to be charged against our card, and we receive X amount of goods or services. We are all adult enough
to realize there is and audit trail and some other uses (fully explained in the TOS) may be made of the information. We are adult enough to realize
no one will do all of this for free.
I absolutely REFUSE to let you EXCUSE the theft of 675 thousand credit card data and 37 million dollars of fraud based on your silly
objection to the TOS that you knew going in.
The system without the fraudsters does not victimize me.
The fraudsters victimize me.
No amount of windmill tilting on your part can change that.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually you are not victimized at all. You are not even party to proceedings for those seeking remediation.
I am assuming of course, that these were just straight purchased with a credit card number and NOT identity fraud in which you are harmed by a lower magic number they come up which causes you pay more interest, the harm part.
Most likely, The TOS that you signed going in, specifically made you *not* the victim. I have had a few charges made that were not me at all. Other than placing a phone call an
Re:Sounds about right. (Score:5, Informative)
The victim here are the credit card companies themselves. The merchant still gets paid from what I understand, and the credit card company has to eat it. Hence, they are the victims, not you.
Are you Daft?
Credit card companies charge back fraudulent sales to the merchant. They eat little or nothing themselves.
The merchants eat it.
The card holder is still on the hook for $50 or so. More if they delay reporting the loss.
Further, the cost of goods goes up for everyone due to merchants having to eat the loss of the Color TV purchased with a fraudulent card for which they are charged-back.
Re:Sounds about right. (Score:4, Informative)
Fun fact. The elderly pensioner who lived next door to me is now homeless after being credit card frauded over the internet. He was an old , not particularly literate, old man.
The company who got broken into didn't do this to him , the thief did.
Stick all the abstractions you like up your own arse and light it on fire for all I can care. The buck stops at a respectable but aged 70 year old man who last I checked is living in a squat with junkies because some punk thought it would be clever to empty his meagre pension and thus make him unable to pay his boarding house rent. Thats the bottom line.
Re: (Score:2)
Not with a functioning moral compass.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yes, it most certainly does rely on the notion that your personal information is known only by you. The primary way identity fraud works is by filling out applications using enough of a person's identity information to complete the application and having the cards and other information sent to a location of the perpetrator's choosing. By opening a whole new account, the person who was impersonated will have no knowledge of what had happened until months later leaving the trail to grow colder. If you t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. I got off the personal-debt-financing ride, have almost nothing in personal debt and a savings that could sustain my family for quite some time if I lost my income. If that makes me a nutjob, then I guess I'm a nutjob. Are my achievements really that hard to believe? Do you think it's impossible? LOTS of people have done what I have done. Sure, I'm not doing what the "general public" does. But then again, the general public doesn't have much if any savings and lives paycheck-to-paycheck. And wh
Re: (Score:3)
This is wrong. It actually not only hurts those who had their card data stolen, but it also hurts everyone who has a credit card, or who needs to secure a line of credit, because the cost to insure against losses due to fraud are eventually passed on to the borrower in the form of higher interest rates, higher fees, or more restrictive lending practices. That money isn't just eaten by the companies--you would be delusional to think that for one second.
The sentence is too light, not in terms of the jail te
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
People who need credit cards aren't managing their money well enough. With few exceptions, I have been off of the credit system for more than a decade now and have lived quite well. Instead of lines of credit, I have money in the bank. And I don't buy stupid stuff like I used to. Turns out, when it's "your money" you think a little more about how you spend it.
I'll go ahead and reveal myself as a Dave Ramsey fan... an atheist Dave Ramsey fan... weird right? A credit score truly is an "I love debt" score
Re:Sounds about right. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is one of the dumbest posts I've ever read on the internet.
1. You're not some messiah for not having a credit card, contrary to your belief. Your failure to manage your money with a credit card is damning evidence of why nobody should bother listening to you on topics related to money. There is not a dichotomy of "has a credit card and makes stupid purchases" versus "does not have a credit card and makes good purchases". Your inability to separate yourself from those in the first category is your own fault, not the card's fault.
2. I frequently make purchases in the $XXXX range. I'm not carrying around a checkbook or that much cash. In the case of a mugging? I call my CC company, they willingly set up no-expense-paid monitoring on my SSN for a year, and then they send me a new number. In the case of cash/checkbook? I'm royally fucked.
3. I don't know who or what David Ramsey is, nor do I care what some radio financial evangelist thinks. If he is truly a "multi millionaire" like you claim, there's a good reason he doesn't need a credit score - whatever he's buying, he can probably afford. The rest of us? Not so lucky.
Re: (Score:2)
...yes I am a messiah like it or lump it...
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Re: (Score:2)
...yes I am a messiah like it or lump it...
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy.
Re:Sounds about right. (Score:5, Informative)
You clearly don't understand the nature of credit and its importance in American economics.
The implication in your simplistic view of credit is that it is a mechanism by which one borrows what they cannot afford to pay in full immediately. This is only sometimes true. However, in many cases, credit is used as a method of protecting oneself from risk. Only fools and old grandmothers who stash money under their mattresses think that credit is intrinsically bad. If I pay for something with a card, my creditor provides additional protections in case what I bought is not as advertised, or if there is some other dispute with the merchant. If I paid cash, I have no such protection.
Building a positive credit history is also essential for other purposes, such as renting a property, or securing employment in some sectors. Whether you agree with the practice or not, there is an increasing trend toward using credit history as a measure of financial and social responsibility. Lack of such a history is not considered an advantage--quite the opposite. If you are one of the lucky few who can get through life without having to establish your reputation through such means, then that's great, but that doesn't give you the right to be condescending toward the vast, vast majority of individuals who work hard and manage their credit wisely.
Credit is like food. You can use it in moderation. Excessive use may be an indication of addiction. Trying to avoid it is an illness unto itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Really, when I use my credit card, my creditor only charges me extra fees.
What protects me from being sold a product that is not as advertised is the Australian consumer protection laws that will, if the product is defective or different to what was advertised from an Australian retailer entitles me to a refund or exchange regardless of how I paid for it as long as I can provide a
Re: (Score:2)
The credit card companies are actually giving me money.
I get 1% cashback on my purchases, have to pay $25 / year for the credit card, but I put recurring bills totallying well over $2500 per month on the credit card, so the $25 is paid easily. I pay everything within the grace period.
After that, there's the subtle time-value effect. Essentially the billing cycle plus grace period provide me with what is essentially extra wealth to invest. It's a trivial trickle amount and not worth a lot of hassle or any
Re: (Score:2)
There is growing back lash against this, look at the recent debit card legislation. people prefer fees to be upfront so they can compare, not hidden as intra-company pseudo tax.
Re: (Score:3)
I get 1% cashback on my purchases, have to pay $25 / year for the credit card, but I put recurring bills totallying well over $2500 per month on the credit card,
Each CC transaciton attracts a higher fee paid by the merchant (that's who you're paying) to be paid to the bank. This can be as high as 3%. The cost of this is passed back on to you, the customer in the form of higher prices. The net effect is to increase the cost of whatever you're trying to purchase without increasing revenue to the company you're purchasing from.
Please dont tell me that you're naive enough to think the bank was giving you free money, they paid you back out of the % the bank got from
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with most of what you said, except for the "vast majority managing their credit wisely" part - the US economy wouldnt have tanked so bad if that were true. Across the world per capita debt is rising to unsustainable levels.
I think people who live in the black, and use credit cards only for convenience are a real minority.
Re: (Score:2)
This has NOTHING to do with "credit" and everything to do with "electronic transactions" plus a little legislation. In short, you can get ALL those benefits with a DEBIT card, without utilizing credit.
Re: (Score:3)
Credit is not food. Credit is drugs. Use drugs in moderation. Excessive use may be an indication of addiction. No need to repeat the last statement.
One does not have to prove one is worthy of being given food by borrowing increasing amounts of food only to return it later.
That is the simplicity of this game. People spend money and then they pay it back.. eventually, maybe, at some point in time. Even if EVERYONE pays their debts without exception, why doesn't it simply make more sense to save first, s
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you're an idiot. Why do some people think that just because they can't grasp that credit isn't "free money" - or if it takes them a very long time to get there - then the rest of us must have the same problem, too?
Re: (Score:2)
See all of the above for a classic example of defending themselves and the way they operate.
The fact is, using credit cards for personal business is not necessary in most cases. I do have a debit card with credit card links to an account with "as needed" funds in there at any time to limit losses in the event of fraud, but that's as far as I go for the convenience/necessity of that.
Credit cards are a loan. There may or may not be fees associated with what you buy or how you pay, etc, but it invariably dep
Re: (Score:2)
"The banks are going to insist that..."
That seriously makes a great point. At some level, everyone knows how beholden we are to "the banks." They run the show don't they? Even if you operate in the black at all times, you still need the banks' blessing to get by.
There is ample proof out there that it is possible to go through life with little to no debt. It doesn't make sense to me why anyone would volunteer themselves to sustain the wealth and power of the banks which already run our lives in exchange
Re: (Score:2)
Or you could pay your credit card bill off in full every month, the way I do, and enjoy the convenience of having a credit card and not having any debt.
Re: (Score:2)
That presumes disaster will never hit your life. You know? When the financial crisis began to become public news (it started way before it hit the news you know) it started to affect people like you pretty early in the game -- people who once paid their bills found themselves unemployed an unable to sustain themselves on debt financing. I was also affected by the financial crisis as I eventually found myself without a job, but at that time, I had a larger savings than I ever had before in my life and bec
Re: (Score:2)
No, it assumes that I actually have money in the bank and that the stuff that I buy with my credit card I have money to pay for. If I become unemployed, I pay off the credit card with the cash I have in the bank. I'm not running up credit, hoping that my next paycheck will come in and I'll pay it off that way. Yes, if you are using CC to spend money you don't have, then I agree, you are digging a hole. I am not.
Re: (Score:2)
Well yes, that's true to a point - he does have a terrible credit score, in part because he doesn't participate in the system. However, non-participation won't get you a "terrible" credit score, just a bad one.
Want to know what will get you a terrible credit score? Something like this: [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
The only credit I have ever had is a student loan (in the UK where they're basically a no brainer due to interest rate) and now have a 50% mortgage which I'll have paid off by 30. I don't need credit at the moment, but I'm not naive enough to think that me
Re: (Score:2)
The only credit I have ever had is a student loan (in the UK where they're basically a no brainer due to interest rate) and now have a 50% mortgage which I'll have paid off by 30.
In other words, you were very well off to start with (as you could afford a 50% deposit on a house) and you are now earning a lot of money so you can pay your mortgage off quickly.
Well done, we're impressed by how much money you have. Why don't you just tell us your annual salary and penis size and have done with it?
Re: (Score:2)
This does hurt those 675,000 people, PLUS it hurts tens of thousand, possibly even millions, of investors in those businesses that are affected.
Theft is theft. It hurts SOMEONE. And, unlike all the talk about IP theft, this is theft of tangible goods, ie, hard currency.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not that serious. If you have an issue with cancelling your credit card, informing a few companies of the change, and filling out a short form to recover your money you have bigger issues than this man. People need to relax.
Multiply that by 675000 times. If it takes you 10 minutes on the phone to the credit card company, and 10-20 minutes to each biller (estimated on the low side - chances are you'll probably be on hold for 30 minutes or more). On average say you have a minimum of 2 direct debits (utilities, phone/internet - not counting rent, etc.), that's at least 30 minutes - which 675000 man hours wasted (30 minutes for you, 30 minutes for the person answering a call).
Not to mention all the police and fraud squad involveme
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that serious. If you have an issue with cancelling your credit card, informing a few companies of the change, and filling out a short form to recover your money you have bigger issues than this man. People need to relax.
All of which is a huge inconvenience and stress to the individual and adds to the bottom line costs of the banks and card processors. Times 675,000. Ten years (really 5 or 6 with good behaviour) really is too short for such serious fraud, and likely organised criminal activity.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
ya, I mean one can quibble over the exactly extent of the sentence or whatever, but that belongs on a law site. Steal credit card info, get caught, get convicted, get punished. Sounds about right.
It's not exactly clear if they mean he gained 36 million from this, or if that's just the value of the fraud on the cards. I remember here in canada we had a similar story years ago, and there are various levels of intermediaries. The hacker gets paid to get the card info, they sell it to a clearing house who r
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
No fucking way. I'd say he deserves at least two years per $1M. Just kill him now.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
No fucking way. I'd say he deserves at least two years per $1M. Just kill him now.
You're likely a troll, but I'll bite anyway:
Really? This guy is playing the same game called Capitalism that everyone else is playing. Megacorporations, oil companies, banks, etc., get away with theft (and much worse) on scales that are orders of magnitude greater, affecting much more people and in more extreme ways.
They'll never spend a day in any kind of prison. With that in perspective, the sentence this guy is getting is unjustly harsh.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're right. Let's round up the CEOs.
Re: (Score:2)
Put him in a cell with someone whose old parents couldn't pay their heating bills because his abuse stripped their credit cards. And hope that someone likes boys with pretty mouths.
Re: (Score:2)
Please excude my crudity: But my (quite old) father had an identity theft problem last year, that made it hard for him to get his heart medications, and I'm still very angry about it. The confusion and delays could have been fatal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To put it in context, that's 7 minutes, 47.52 seconds in prison per card number, or about 8.8 seconds per dollar in losses.
At that rate it's positively profitable to steal card numbers!
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. With the US and other capitalist nations the amount of time served for stealing funds is inversely related to the amount of funds stolen. If you steal enough you are lauded for your performance.
Re: (Score:2)
$3,590,000 / (365.25 * 24) = $409 per hour
So, how many people would like a job that paid $409/hour and got paid up-front? Now, surely any ill-gained assets were seized, but still, the probability of being caught is low enough for this to make perfect economic sense.
Not nearly enough time (Score:4, Insightful)
Ten years means he will probably enjoy the fruits of his labor at 35, when he retires with some of that 36 million (or the other multi-millions the feds never found) that he squirreled away off shore.
in prison the high cost of phone + commissary (Score:2)
Eats funds fast and the club feds are not what they just to be.
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't $675k, it was 675k CC numbers that were stolen, so it's doubtful that he made only $675k.
Re: (Score:2)
Leading to losses totalling 36 million does not mean that he personally stole 36 million. He may have just had a commission--at that quantity, he sounds like a wholesaler.
Re:Not nearly enough time (Score:5, Insightful)
Losses incurred probably include things like time lost in canceling a card and issuing new one. The wordings of TFA don't make it clear whether he used all those cards or he just sold it to other criminals, so I have no idea how much this guy directly made.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a ridiculous assumption. This guy was stupid enough to get caught. I seriously doubt he was smart enough to be able to hide the money. $36 million was mentioned but that's against CC accounts that have been bought and sold by him and doesn't prove or even indicate that he actually even used any of those cards himself. And the article identifies him as a career identity thief. "ID Theft" (Identity Fraud) doesn't usually involve the use of existing credit accounts, but rather it usually involves o
Re: (Score:2)
Ten years means he will probably enjoy the fruits of his labor at 35, when he retires with some of that 36 million (or the other multi-millions the feds never found) that he squirreled away off shore.
Don't drop the soap in the shower in the meantime.
Rogelio Hackett (Score:5, Interesting)
The Mr Hackett was destined to become a hacker...
http://www.freakonomics.com/2009/04/24/yes-part-ii/ [freakonomics.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
What if the name Dennis was fashionable among the upper-middle class during the years the current generation of dentist was born, leading to a significantly higher propensity for a high-investment, high-income career for the children ?
The guys of Freakonomics explained how children names become fashionable among the upper classes, and are then emulated by the lower classes; the upper classes then move to new names as the old names become mundane. Slutty names like Bambi and Brandy were at one point all the
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
I never get why these people stick around (Score:3)
Could he not have stoped at say 15M and taken an indefinite vacation to a non extradition country.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt he made more than a few million, and really, who could live on that?
Re: (Score:2)
This.
There seems to be a perception - and it's not limited to /., I've seen it all over the place - that as soon as you're running a business that's turning over, say, £10 million per year, you're automatically going to be making an enormous income yourself and could theoretically sell the business and retire inside a couple of years.
Truth is that in many businesses, a £10 million turnover realistically equates to about £500,000 net profit. Which sounds fantastic but it's only about 5% - a
How does this sit with the RIAA sentances (Score:5, Interesting)
Given that 675,000 credit cards is a ten year prison sentence, I do wonder what the same sentence would have been if it was 675,000 tracks he downloaded - and if the two of these sentences are therefore proof that the law is tilted towards a specific type of industry?
sentencing guidelines (Score:4, Interesting)
At least it wasn't copying (Score:2)
If he had 675k of MP3s on Bittorrent, I'm sure he'd have life in prison for costing the music industry 90 trillion in damages.
BFD (Score:2)
Big fucking Deal. Fucking whiners and such. I had 3K of fraudulent chargers against me last year. And while I could have been shafted when a minimum charge, come company took the hit instead and I paid nothing. That said, I still hope that was the same fucker.
And at that much money, hopefully it won't be club fed. I also hope that some state gets its hands on him, and he ends up serving some time in a fuck you in the ass state pen with thugs and violent offenders.
Re: (Score:2)
Really, you're happy with thugs and violent offenders being given free sex slaves paid for by your tax dollars?
If this country had a single ounce of sense we would just shoot the guy.
Those are only his federal charges. (Score:2)
He almost certainly broke the laws of every state in the nation. Each state therefore can build a case against him while he is in prison. And since he made the statements, they would be easy cases to prosecute. I doubt he is going to Tahiti after his term.
Georgia? (Score:2)
Why is the U.S. Secret Service doing busting into a house in Georgia?
Do they suspect the Georgian secret service of colluding with the perpetrator? Or Russian Mafia moles in the Georgian police?
Re: (Score:3)
It's a line from a movie. One that virtually everyone on this site has seen. It doesn't mean people are pro-rape. The occasional scumbag might be, but if you judge an entire country based on them, you're going to find that every country fails your standards.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, on the first day. By the second day, you would offer to give them the 10k back with 100% interest in order to be released, I promise you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll admit to not reading the f'n A, but I don't think they let you keep the money.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why anarchy is the preferred political system of the new millennium.