This case involves the co-founders, administrators and members of the Infraud Organization, which was founded in 2010 and was active between 2010 and 2018. The slogan of the organization was “in fraud we trust.” The Infraud Organization operated as a criminal enterprise with its objective of financially enriching its members through cybercrimes, particularly online fraud and identity theft. The illicit acts the organization engaged in included money laundering, identity theft, counterfeit identification trafficking, bank fraud, wire fraud, among other crimes. In total, the organization caused USD 568 million in actual losses and USD 2.2 billion in intended losses. The Infraud Organization ran an online discussion forum, known as Infraud, which had over 10,000 members from around the world.
According to the Second Superseding Criminal Indictment, the roles of individuals that were part of this criminal enterprise included administrators, super moderators, moderators, vendors, VIP members, and members:
1. Administrators. Administrators were responsible for “long-term strategic planning” of the enterprise, and daily management tasks, such as determining responsibilities and levels of access of all members, vetting prospective members, deciding which members can join, and rewarding and punishing existing members.
2. Super Moderators. Super moderators were responsible for moderating content by reviewing contraband for sale, editing and deleting posts based on reviews, and mediating disputes between buyers and vendors (i.e., sellers). The content they moderated was assigned based on either geographic area or criminal expertise.
3. Moderators. Moderators have some of the same responsibilities for moderating content, but they have less privileges and authority than super moderators.
4. Vendors. Individuals who sold and/or advertised illicit goods and services on the site.
5. VIP members. VIP members were longstanding, distinguished members of the platform.
6. Members. General members of the forum.
The founders of the organization are Svyatoslav Bondarenko and Sergey Medvedev. Along with being a co-founder, Sergey Medvedev served as the administrator of the site and ran the escrow service of the organization, which held funds for a purchase in escrow until the buyer received the items purchased (in good order). He further created a virtual currency exchange service where virtual currencies were exchanged for fiat currencies, promoted, created incentives, and set prices for advertisements on Infraud. The defendant assumed leadership of the organization after Svyatoslav Bondarenko disappeared.
For quality control of contraband recovered from acts of fraud and identity theft, members provided feedback and ratings of vendors and their products. To protect individuals who are part of this criminal enterprise, measures were taken to secure the site and restrict access to the site. Svyatoslav Bondarenko established rules governing the conduct of members on Infraud and these rules were enforced by administrators, moderators, and supermoderators of the forum. Members who violated these rules were punished by, for example, being removed and banned from the site. All new members had to be vetted before being granted access to the forum.
In this case, 36 defendants were charged for their roles in the Infraud Organization. The criminal proceedings for most of these defendants are still ongoing. The defendant, one of the founders of Infraud, Sergey Medvedev, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to engage in a racketeer influenced corrupt organization. The other founder, Svyatoslav Bondarenko, is still at large. Two other defendants and members of Infraud pleaded guilty to engage in a racketeer influenced corrupt organization. Firstly, Jose Gamboa became a member of Infraud in December 2010 and advertised as vendor of custom-built ATM skimmers within the Infraud forum. Secondly, Valerian Chiochiu advised other members on the development and use of malware. He also developed malware that was used by other members to gain unauthorized access to personal and financial data and access device data. The illegally obtained information would then be sold on the Infraud forum to other Infraud members. The defendant also fraudulently purchased gift cards which were then sold on the Infraud forum to members for a profit.
Undercover HIS investigators gained access to the forum and interacted with members, purchasing illicit goods and services from members of the forum.
U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada
The defendant entered into a plea agreement on 20 August 2019. At the time of writing, the defendant has not been sentenced.
U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada
The defendant entered into a plea agreement in relation to the racketeering charge on 26 June 2020. At the time of writing, the defendant has not been sentenced.
U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada
The defendant entered into a plea agreement on 31 July 2020. At the time of writing, the defendant has not been sentenced.
18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)
Conspiracy to engage in a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization
18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)
Conspiracy to engage in a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization
18 U.S.C. §§ 1029(a)(3) and 2
Possession of Fifteen or More Counterfeit and Unauthorized Access Devices (8 counts)
The charge did not only include the possession but also aiding and abetting the possession of others.
18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)
Conspiracy to engage in a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization
18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)
Conspiracy to engage in a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization
18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)
Conspiracy to engage in a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization
18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)
Conspiracy to engage in a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization
18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)
Conspiracy to engage in a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization
18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)
Conspiracy to engage in a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization
18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)
Conspiracy to engage in a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization
18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)
Conspiracy to engage in a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization
18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)
Conspiracy to engage in a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization
18 U.S.C. §§ 1029(a)(3) and 2
Possession of Fifteen or More Counterfeit and Unauthorized Access Devices (3 counts)
The charge did not only include the possession but also aiding and abetting the possession of others.
18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)
Conspiracy to engage in a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization
18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)
Conspiracy to engage in a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization
18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)
Conspiracy to engage in a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization
18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)
Conspiracy to engage in a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization
18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)
Conspiracy to engage in a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization
18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)
Conspiracy to engage in a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization
18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)
Conspiracy to engage in a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization
18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)
Conspiracy to engage in a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization
18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)
Conspiracy to engage in a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization
18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)
Conspiracy to engage in a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization
18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)
Conspiracy to engage in a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization
18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)
Conspiracy to engage in a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization
18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)
Conspiracy to engage in a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization
18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)
Conspiracy to engage in a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization
18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)
Conspiracy to engage in a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization
18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)
Conspiracy to engage in a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization
18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)
Conspiracy to engage in a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization
18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)
Conspiracy to engage in a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization
18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)
Conspiracy to engage in a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization
18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)
Conspiracy to engage in a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization
18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)
Conspiracy to engage in a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization
18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)
Conspiracy to engage in a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization
18 U.S.C. §§ 1029(a)(3) and 2
Possession of Fifteen or More Counterfeit and Unauthorized Access Devices (1 count)
The charge did not only include the possession but also aiding and abetting the possession of others.
18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)
Conspiracy to engage in a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization
18 U.S.C. §§ 1029(a)(3) and 2
Possession of Fifteen or More Counterfeit and Unauthorized Access Devices (1 count)
The charge did not only include the possession but also aiding and abetting the possession of others.
18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)
Conspiracy to engage in a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization
18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)
Conspiracy to engage in a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization
18 U.S.C. §§ 1029(a)(3) and 2
Possession of Fifteen or More Counterfeit and Unauthorized Access Devices (3 counts)
The charge did not only include the possession but also aiding and abetting the possession of others.
U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada
United States of America v. Jose Gamboa, No. 2:17-CR-306-JCM-VCF (D. Nev. Aug 20, 2019)
United States of America v. Sergey Medvedev, No. 2:17-CR-00306-JCM-VCF, Plea Agreement (D. Nev. Jun 26, 2020).
United States of America v. Valerian Chiochiu, No. 2:17-CR-00306-JCM-PAL, Plea Agreement (D. Nev. Jul 31, 2020).
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, “Thirty-six Defendants Indicted for Alleged Roles in Transnational Criminal Organization Responsible for More than $530 Million in Losses from Cybercrimes” 7 February 2018.
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, “Malware Author Pleads Guilty for Role in Transnational Cybercrime Organization Responsible for more than $568 Million in Losses” 31 July 2020.
Comments
The three defendants that have pleaded guilty at the time of writing have agreed to forfeit proceeds of crime in their plea agreements. More specifically, Jose Gamboa agreed to forfeit USD 208,446.00; Sergey Medvedev USD 1,041,517.84; and Valerian Chiochiu USD 1,548,568.77. At the state of the proceedings at the time of writing, this would make a total of USD 2,798,532.61, however, no final forfeiture order has been issued thus far.