Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Security United States

As Prosecutors Submit Evidence, WannaCry Hero's Legal Fund Returns All Donations (buzzfeed.com) 172

Posted by EditorDavid from the fraudulent-funding dept.
An anonymous reader quote BuzzFeed: The vast majority of money raised to pay for the legal defense of beloved British cybersecurity researcher Marcus Hutchins was donated with stolen or fake credit card numbers, and all donations, including legitimate ones, will be returned, the manager of the defense fund says. Lawyer Tor Ekeland, who managed the fund, said at least $150,000 of the money collected came from fraudulent sources, and that the prevalence of fraudulent donations effectively voided the entire fundraiser. He said he'd been able to identify only about $4,900 in legitimate donations, but that he couldn't be certain even of those. "I don't want to take the risk, so I just refunded everything," he said.
Two days later, Hutchins posted the following on Twitter. "When sellouts are talking shit about the 'infosec community' remember that someone I'd never met flew to Vegas to pay $30K cash for my bail."

Hutchins is facing up to 40 years in prison, and at first was only allowed to leave his residence for four hours each week. Thursday a judge lifted some restrictions so that Hutchins is now allowed to travel to Milwaukee, where his employer is located. According to Bloomberg, government prosecutors complain Hutchins now "has too much freedom while awaiting trial and may skip the country."

Clickthrough for a list of the evidence government prosecutors submitted to the court this week.
According to BankInfoSecurity, this is the evidence submitted by government prosecutors.
  • Statements made by Hutchins after he was arrested.
  • A CD containing two audio recordings from a county jail in Nevada where he was apparently detained by the FBI.
  • 150 pages of Jabber chats between the defendant and an individual.
  • Business records from Apple, Google and Yahoo.
  • Statements (350 pages) by the defendant from another internet forum, which were seized by the government in another district.
  • Three to four samples of malware.
  • A search warrant executed on a third party, which may contain some privileged information.

Hutchins' attorneys have requested 45-60 days to review evidence, and on October 13 both attorneys will then give the judge a proposed schedule for the actual trial.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

As Prosecutors Submit Evidence, WannaCry Hero's Legal Fund Returns All Donations More

As Prosecutors Submit Evidence, WannaCry Hero's Legal Fund Returns All Donations

Comments Filter:

  • Bitcoin (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28, 2017 @05:32AM (#55095981)

    This wouldn't happen with Bitcoin, no rollbacks, just cold hard money.

    • Re:Bitcoin (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DontBeAMoran ( 4843879 ) on Monday August 28, 2017 @06:13AM (#55096057)

      And all you have to do is pay 5% of your Bitcoins and wait four days for the transaction to confirm!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tomhath ( 637240 )

      You're saying that once a bitcoin is obtained illegally there's no way for the rightful owner to ever recover it? (because that's why all the donations were returned - stolen credit cards).

      Thanks, but I'll pass on that system.

      • Sure there is - the same way as if someone stole cash from you - track them down and force them to give it back. It's potentially even easier with bitcoin because every transactions leaves a permanent public record so you know *exactly* where your money went. Of course if someone steals your bitcoin wallet they'll probably immediately empty it and attempt to launder the money - money laundering (aka "bitcoin mixers" and, I think, many of the "exchanges") being one of the first and most persistent major se

        • I think there are bitcoins, and they reside at their respective addresses of which the owners hold the private keys.

          • And where, exactly, do these addresses exist that they can contain anything? Bitcoin addresses are just transaction tokens. You have a wallet (account number) that is associated with a certain balance based on past transaction ledger entries. The coins exist only as a total on a ledger sheet, they have no individual identity. Unlike some other electronic currencies where individual "coins" have their own unique signature that gets passed around. More like modern banking/credit card transactions than buy

    • Bitcoin is anything but "cold, hard money".

  • Ouch (Score:5, Funny)

    by wonkey_monkey ( 2592601 ) on Monday August 28, 2017 @05:53AM (#55096005) Homepage

    Thursday a judge lifted some restrictions so that Hutchins is now allowed to travel to Milwaukee

    Hey, what happened to "no cruel or unusual punishment"?

    • damned if i do, damned if i dont. shit happens. moving along now.
    • It's not a punishment as he hasn't been convicted yet. You think government prosecutors don't know how to make an end run around the Constitution? You think they play fair? This is the Department of Justice we're talking about.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        I once sat in on a trial run by DOJ where their prosecutor lied so blatantly that his own expert witness sued him. The federal judge even agreed that the prosecutor was lying but that it was ok.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by ebvwfbw ( 864834 )

          Should go to a TV news station that exposes abuse like that. Hey, stop laughing, there are some good reporters out there that still report real news.

  • Misleading Title (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CanadianMacFan ( 1900244 ) on Monday August 28, 2017 @06:21AM (#55096091)

    I read the title and I thought that they were giving the legal fund donations back because they had given up, not because almost all of them were fraudulent.

  • Shut up (Score:5, Informative)

    by Paradise Pete ( 33184 ) on Monday August 28, 2017 @06:33AM (#55096109) Journal
    I notice that the very first bullet point of evidence submitted by prosecutors is "Statements made by Hutchins after he was arrested." As Popehat has said, [popehat.com] when the police interview or arrest you, shut up. Don't explain, don't offer reasons or excuses, just shut the hell up and get a lawyer.

    • Re:Shut up (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28, 2017 @07:08AM (#55096221)

      a longer video about why you shouldn't talk to the police, at all.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

      • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

        by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

        a longer video about why you shouldn't talk to the police, at all.

        I recently heard the mother of all shouting arguments and then even some gunfire from a home across the valley from me, and guess who I called? Yep, nobody. Hopefully only property damage was involved. But I'm not calling in an attack on the neighbor's land, and then having the cops come over here and shoot me [washingtonpost.com].

        • You can't hide facts with mere moderation.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by ledow ( 319597 )

          This is what happens when gunfire is normal.

          In my country, there's a good chance you'd end up on the news for discharging a firearm like that. Certainly everybody in earshot would be calling the police, and most of them would then be looking for the shooter, even if just out of their windows.

          This is much more to do with becoming acclimatised to being in a country where any idiot can own a gun and fire it, than anything to do with the police.

          • You don't seem to understand that what keeps the US from becoming a fascist police state tomorrow is gun ownership, massive gun ownership.

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by vipw ( 228 )

              Oh. And what's the reason all the other OECD countries aren't becoming fascist police states?

              • First they have to get rid of the guns in the US. Obama did a good job trying it, Clinton would have continued his job.
                When the guns in the US are gone, world fascism (and with that I literally mean the boots will be in your neck) will kick in.
                First in the US, then the rest (OECD).
                It has to be world wide, so first the US guns have to go, then ik can start.

              • They are (or have already become) but fail to understand that they are. Try asking a reasonable question that can actually be answered next time.

        • Officer 1 to officer 2: "Where did that phone call come from?" Officer 2: "13, Crime Street." Driver: "What did you say was the address?" Officer 1: "13, Crime Street. And bring the big guns!" Driver: "Off we go!"

    • Re:Shut up (Score:5, Informative)

      by martyros ( 588782 ) on Monday August 28, 2017 @08:03AM (#55096395)

      Don't explain, don't offer reasons or excuses, just shut the hell up and get a lawyer.

      That might be the best advice in the US, where they're not allowed to hold your silence against you. But in the UK, where Marcus is from, that's not necessarily the best advice; and they tell you when they're arresting you (paraphrasing), "You don't have to say anything now, but it if you don't, it may harm your case later if your defense depends on answers to the questions we're asking."

      • It seems to me that holding your silence is the best option in the UK too. Just because the police tell you some tricky statement to try and get you to make a mistake doesn't mean you shouldn't hold your silence. How can the defense "depend" on those answers, when they don't know what the answers will be? In all cases, making a statement under maximum duress and stress is not a good idea. The statement "You don't have to say anything now, but it if you don't, it may harm the ability of the prosecution t

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by nasch ( 598556 )

          Some more information about the risk of remaining silent in the UK:

          Adverse inferences may be drawn in certain circumstances where before or on being charged, the accused:

          fails to mention any fact which he later relies upon and which in the circumstances at the time the accused could reasonably be expected to mention;
          fails to give evidence at trial or answer any question;
          fails to account on arrest for objects, substances or marks on his person, clothing or footwear, in his possession, or in the place where he is arrested; or
          fails to account on arrest for his presence at a place.

          How someone under the stress of being questioned by police is supposed to make a good decision based on these factors is beyond me, which is why the absolute right to silence without consequence is so important IMO.

          • I think the idea is, if it's something obvious like, "Where were you last night?" "I was visiting my parents in Devon." That might be something you were reasonably expected to mention. The problem is when you get to things you might not want to mention: "I was with my neighbor's wife", or "I was cooking crystal meth" (which is bad but not as bad as murdering someone). Are those things that you might "reasonbly be expected to mention"?

            I would hope that if when arrested I said, "I'd like to speak to a la

        • Just because the police tell you some tricky statement to try and get you to make a mistake

          UK not US. The police don't have quotas on arresting people there and are generally far more respected as a functioning part of society compare to the brain-dead hitsquad that is the USA.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        The situation in the UK is pretty fucked up. If you don't trust the police (and why would you, they have a track record of lying) you have to convince a jury that's why you didn't want to talk to them. And most juries are quite conservative and willing to trust the police, which is why they get away with lying so often.

      • Well, yeah. See above for that bit about Europe and fascism. The US has that little bit about being allowed to be uncommunicative with the police and it not being able to be used against for the exact reason that the British have been abusing it for well over 250 years. What do you think that quaint little war that George lost was all about? That the crown was being irresponsible with all the freedom it was handing out?

  • Justice in Murica (Score:5, Insightful)

    by volodymyrbiryuk ( 4780959 ) on Monday August 28, 2017 @07:05AM (#55096213)
    The saddest thing abouth the whole situation is that in the majority of cases getting 40 years in a federal prison vs walking free is matter of how big your bank account is.

    • The tricky part isn't wether this guy 'did it' or not.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by NicknameUnavailable ( 4134147 )

      The saddest thing abouth the whole situation is that in the majority of cases getting 40 years in a federal prison vs walking free is matter of how big your bank account is.

      Or in this case, who you piss off. Chances are Wannacry was a state-sponsored attack (probably by our own nation) to cause a distraction from politics, it failed because a vigilante decided to poke at it and stumbled upon a weakness to stop it. That kind of thing doesn't go unpunished (Hell, they probably used the stolen cards to donate to his legal defense in order to make it look worse on him,) and the guy probably still has no idea why. It's practically straight out of Clockwork Orange.

  • Confusion about cities (Score:3)

    by Fencepost ( 107992 ) on Monday August 28, 2017 @09:41AM (#55096771) Journal
    The case is in Milwaukee. Pretty sure he was being held there.

    The company he works for (Kryptos Logic) is in LA. Pretty sure he's now allowed to travel there and work from the company offices.

    As part of this he's apparently agreed to stay away from LA airports, so not clear how he's getting there (got there?). Road trip maybe?

    The other question I have is whether he's going to be getting crap about working in the USA without a valid work visa. Does the judge allowing him to work cover that as well? Normally I'd say it wouldn't be an issue for someone usually working remotely, but in this case would prosecutors start fishing for other things they might charge him with?

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by jonwil ( 467024 )

      If they are worried about the guy skipping the country (to the point they are insisting he avoid airports) why don't they just ask him to surrender his passport so he cant leave the country. (it happens all the time when people are released on bail or otherwise let out of jail, they are forced to surrender their passport and not to leave the country)

  • only allowed to leave his residence for four hours each week... "has too much freedom while awaiting trial and may skip the country."

    That's more than enough time to notice he hasn't come home and still catch him in the TSA line.

Slashdot Top Deals

If I want your opinion, I'll ask you to fill out the necessary form.

Close