Score:   1
Docket Number:   ED-MI  2:19-cr-20246
Case Name:   United States of America v. Freeman et al
  Press Releases:
Six individuals connected to a hacking group known to its members as “The Community” were charged in a fifteen count indictment unsealed today with conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud and aggravated identity theft, announced United States Attorney Matthew Schneider.  In addition, a criminal complaint was unsealed charging three former employees of mobile phone providers with wire fraud in relation to the conspiracy.

Schneider was joined in the announcement by Acting Special Agent in Charge Angie Salazar of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Detroit.

Charged in the indictment were:

Conor Freeman, 20, of Dublin, Ireland

Ricky Handschumacher, 25 of Pasco County, Florida

Colton Jurisic, 20 of, Dubuque, Iowa

Reyad Gafar Abbas, 19, of Rochester, New York

Garrett Endicott, 21, of Warrensburg, Missouri

Ryan Stevenson, 26, of West Haven, Connecticut

Charged in the criminal complaint were:

Jarratt White, 22 of Tucson, Arizona

Robert Jack, 22 of Tucson, Arizona

Fendley Joseph, 28, of Murrietta, California

According to the indictment, the defendants are members of “The Community” and are alleged to have participated in thefts of victims’ identities in order to steal cryptocurrency via a method known as “SIM Hijacking”.  Cryptocurrencies, also known as virtual currencies or digital currencies, are online media of exchange.  The most famous of these is Bitcoin.  Like traditional currency, they act as a store of value and can be exchanged for goods and services.  They can also be exchanged for dollars. 

“SIM Hijacking” or “SIM Swapping” is an identity theft technique that exploits a common cyber-security weakness – mobile phone numbers.  This tactic enabled “The Community” to gain control of victims’ mobile phone number, resulting in the victims’ phone calls and short message service (“SMS”) messages being routed to devices controlled by “The Community”.  “SIM Hijacking” was often facilitated by bribing an employee of a mobile phone provider.  Other times, SIM Hijacking was accomplished by a member of “The Community” contacting a mobile phone provider’s customer service—posing as the victim—and requesting that the victim’s phone number be swapped to a SIM card (and thus a mobile device) controlled by “The Community”.

The indictment alleges that, once “The Community” had control of a victim’s phone number, the phone number was leveraged as a gateway to gain control of online accounts such as a victim’s email, cloud storage, and cryptocurrency exchange accounts.  For example, “The Community” would use their control of victims’ phone numbers to reset passwords on online accounts and/or request two-factor authentication (2FA) codes that allowed them to bypass security measures. 

The members of “The Community” charged in the indictment endeavored to gain control of victims’ cryptocurrency wallets or online cryptocurrency exchange accounts and steal victims’ funds.  It is alleged in the indictment that the defendants executed seven attacks that resulted in the theft of cryptocurrency valued at approximately $2,416,352.

According to the criminal complaint, defendants White, Jack and Joseph were employees of mobile phone service providers and helped members of “The Community” steal the identities of subscribers to their employers’ services in exchange for bribes. 

“Mobile phones today are not only a means of communication but also a means of identification,” stated United States Attorney Matthew Schneider.  “This case should serve as a reminder to all of us to protect our personal and financial information from those who seek to steal it.”

“The allegations against these defendants are the result of a complex cryptocurrency and identity theft investigation led by Homeland Security Investigations, which spanned two continents,” said Salazar. “Increasingly, criminal groups are turning exclusively to web-based schemes to further their illicit activities, which is why HSI has developed capabilities to meet these threats head on.”

If convicted on the charge of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, each defendant faces a statutory maximum penalty of 20 years in prison.  The charges of wire fraud each carry a statutory maximum penalty of 20 years in prison.  A conviction of aggravated identity theft in support of wire fraud carries a statutory maximum penalty of 2 years in prison to be served consecutively to any sentence imposed on the underlying count of wire fraud.

The defendants in this case are presumed innocent.  Indictments and criminal complaints are merely charges and it is the government’s burden to prove guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

This case was investigated by special agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement with the assistance of Irish law enforcement authorities. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Timothy Wyse, assisted by Assistant United States Attorney Shankar Ramamurthy and attorneys from the DOJ Office of International Affairs.  Special thanks are due to Assistant United States Attorneys and federal agents across the country that provided assistance with arrests and searches conducted on May 9, 2019. 

 

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XnX2KazRMaca8pIlcxwxiXDteetiX4bUpqBNDcbUaq4
  Last Updated: 2023-10-13 00:39:12 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3

Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5

Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2

Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18

Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15

Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2

Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1

Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2

Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fourth highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE4
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE4
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fifth highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE5
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE5
Format: A3

Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5

Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8

Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1

Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10

Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2

Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Format: YYYY

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
F U C K I N G P E D O S R E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E