Wednesday, July 7, 2010

Computer Crime Cases

When it comes to the defense of computer and Internet crime cases, we provide you not only with the legal skills and knowledge necessary of a criminal defense lawyer, but also with the understanding of the technical aspects involved with Internet crime charges:

Some recent cyber crime defense cases where we have assisted our clients include:

  • Our client was accused of being the leader of the most prolific Internet music piracy group in the world.  The charge consisted of conspiracy to commit copyright Infringement.  The charges were initially brought in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia located in Alexandria, Virginia.  The trial took place in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, located in Houston, Texas.  Our client elected to have is case tried by a Federal Jury.  Our technical knowledge assisted us in providing competent legal representation and bringing the case to a successful resolution.  Read More...

  • Our client was arrested on access device fraud charges and aggravated identity theft in the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division.  The accusations involved alleged selling of stolen credit card numbers, social security numbers, other personally identifiable information, as well as e-mail account data for spam purposes.  We thoroughly reviewed the government evidence, both the technical and the legal aspects, and assisted our client in obtaining a favorable result.

  • Our client was accused of using a computer system to solicit a minor in Chesterfield County, Virginia.  Our technical knowledge allowed us to properly dissect and understand the technical issues in the government's evidence, resulting in a favorable resolution for our client.

  • Our client appealed a case handled by another defense attorney to the Virginia Court of Appeals and to the Virginia Supreme Court.  The charges involved the use of a computer system to facilitate certain offenses involving children in Virginia.  Our technical knowledge allowed us to be able to understand the case immediately and completely analyze all the issues despite being retained after the appeal process was already underway.

  • Our client was a victim of computer trespass and unauthorized network access by a former employee.  Our experience in both the legal and technical aspects allowed our client to gather the necessary evidence to prosecute the perpetrator in a "one-stop shopping" manner.

  • Our client was charged with eight counts of use of a computer system to facilitate certain offenses involving children in Virginia.  Our technical analysis allowed us to get the majority of the charges dismissed, resulting in a resolution of the case involving no jail time.

  • Our client was a victim of computer fraud, computer trespass and unauthorized access to his computer by a debt collector.  Our technical know-how and legal analysis allowed us to recommend a course of action for this activity, which may have otherwise gone undetected.  Read More...

Saturday, May 1, 2010

Copyright Infringement Music Piracy Case - Part 3 (The Race to Plea)


Once the music piracy federal criminal conspiracy copyright infringement case began to move through the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the "race to the plea line" began between the various defendants. They hoped to obtain a more lenient treatment in exchange to assisting the government in securing music piracy conspiracy copyright infringement convictions against the other defendants in federal court in Virginia. Only two people accused of allegedly being members of Rabid Neurosis (RNS) did not plead guilty. On of them was Domingo Rivera's client, Adil R. Cassim, who the Prosecution alleged was the leader of RNS.


After the guilty pleas of these defendants were accepted by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the defendants were scheduled for sentencing. As part of the sentencing process, the defendants and the government wrote various briefs with hope of persuading the Court to apply the version of the guidelines that they argue were applicable to the music piracy conspiracy copyright infringement case in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.


The sentencing positions the the prosecution filed for the various music piracy cases were somewhat similar. The government's argument included:


As the Court is aware, the trial of the Defendant’s co-conspirators, which had been scheduled for November 4, 2009 in this District, was transferred by this Court to the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, after the Court sua sponte invited a motion to transfer by the co-conspirators under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 21(b). That trial in Houston (which had originally been scheduled to start on January 19, 2010) has been delayed at the request of the defense, who has also re-filed all the pre-trial motions that it had previously submitted in this District. Due to a need to re-litigate these issues and possibly have additional evidentiary hearings, a new trial date has not yet been set but is expected in the next few months. The timing of the new trial is important since the government intends to call Defendant as a witness at trial. In the event he is called as a witness, the government is likely to file a Motion for a Downward Departure under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35 when his truthful testimony is complete. Given that such a motion for a downward departure is likely to be requested, we would ask the Court to sentence the Defendant to the bottom of the properly calculated advisory sentencing guidelines range, which is 57 months of incarceration, and delay his surrender date until after he has had a chance to testify at the trial of his co-conspirators in March or early April of 2010.


As the above text demonstrates, the defendants who pleaded guilty in the Eastern District of Virginia during this conspiracy copyright infringement case. The government's argument continued:


As set forth in the Presentence Report and the Statement of Facts, the Defendant was a member of an Internet pre-release music group called “Rabid Neurosis” or “RNS.” The Defendant has acknowledged that he did willfully enter into an agreement with one or more individuals for the express purpose of unlawfully reproducing and distributing copyrighted materials via the Internet. Defendant also acknowledges that, through the acts of himself and others in the conspiracy, RNS caused the reproduction and distribution over the Internet of copyrighted works with a total infringement amount of more than $1,000,000 and less than $2,500,000. This Defendant was a particularly key member of the conspiracy, since for many years he provided the group with albums that were not yet commercially available. The Defendant worked at the North Carolina compact disc production facility that made the music CDs that the Defendant electronically provided to the leader of RNS. He trafficked in this stolen intellectual property, contrary to the express written agreement he had with his employer. In sum, the Defendant and his co-worker (who introduced him to RNS) were critical to the rise of RNS to the forefront of Internet music piracy that resulted in far more than $1,000,000 in loss.


Defendant pled guilty to a single count criminal information of conspiracy to commit copyright infringement, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371. On that date, the Court accepted the Defendant’s plea of guilty to the indictment. In this case, there was both an agreed-upon statement of facts and a plea agreement. In the statement of facts and before the Court, the Defendant admitted his unlawful conduct. Based on this record, the Presentence Report properly calculated that the Adjusted Offense Level for the Defendant’s conduct as 28: Sentencing Guideline 2B5.3(a) provides for an offense level of 8 for criminal copyright infringement; Guideline 2B5.3(b)(1)(I) provides an additional sixteen-level upward adjustment for an offense with an infringement amount greater than $1,000,000, but less than $2,500,000; Guideline 2B5.3(b)(3)(A) provides an additional two-level upward adjustment for an offense involving the uploading of infringed items; and Guideline 2B5.3(b)(2) provides an additional two-level upward adjustment for an offense involving the reproduction/distribution of at least one work being prepared for commercial distribution.


In the event that the government files a motion with the Court for a Section 3E1.1(b) one-level reduction and assuming the Defendant receives the two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, the Defendant will have an Offense Level Total of 25. The Presentence Report further calculates that the Defendant has a Criminal History Category of I. With an Offense Level Total of 25 and the Defendant’s Criminal History Category of I, the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range for the Defendant, in absence of credit for his cooperation, is properly calculated as 57-60 months.


The Supreme Court has declared that “[a]s a matter of administration and to secure nationwide consistency, the Guidelines should be the starting point and the initial benchmark.” Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 596 (2007). The advisory Sentencing Guidelines, therefore, remain an indispensable resource for assuring appropriate and uniform punishment for federal criminal offenses. This Court must also consider all of the sentencing considerations set forth in Section 3553(a). Those factors include: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the Defendant; (2) the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; (3) the need to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, and to protect the public from further crimes of the Defendant; (4) the need to provide the Defendant with educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner; (5) the guidelines and policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission; (6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct; and (7) the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). B. A Sentence at the Bottom of the Sentencing Guidelines Would Be Reasonable and Appropriate in Light of Recent Supreme Court Rulings. The government’s recommendation of a bottom of the advisory sentencing guidelines range is based in part on the fact that such a sentence properly reflects the accumulated wisdom and expertise of the Sentencing Commission, and serves the vital goal of uniformity and fairness in sentencing. While, to be sure, “[i]n accord with 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the Guidelines, formerly mandatory, now serve as one factor among several courts must consider in determining an appropriate sentence,” Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 558, 574 (2007), it remains the case that “the Commission fills an important institutional role: it has the capacity courts lack to ‘base its determinations on empirical data and national experience, guided by a professional staff with appropriate expertise,’” id. at 574 (quoting United States v. Pruitt, 502 F.3d 1154, 1171 (10th Cir. 2007) (McConnell, J., concurring)). Thus, the Supreme Court recently stated that “[w]e have accordingly recognized that, in the ordinary case, the Commission’s recommendation of a sentencing range will ‘reflect a rough approximation of sentences that might achieve § 3553(a)’s objectives.” Kimbrough, 128 S. Ct. at 574 (quoting Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2465 (2007)). C. A Sentence at the Bottom of the Sentencing Guidelines is Reasonable In Light Of the Serious Nature Of Defendant’s Criminal Conduct. There can be no question that the Defendant engaged in serious crimes that harmed individuals and businesses (including his former employer); in fact, the total infringement amount attributable to the conspiracy of which the Defendant was a member is well over $1,000,000 (the parties have agreed to cap the amount at $2,500,000). In particular, the Defendant violated the trust of his former employer, the plant that printed compact discs for several music labels; he traded the intellectual property that was entrusted to his employer in order to get access to thousands and thousands of other copyrighted works. His breach at a time when no legitimate copies of the works he traded were available harmed the music industry in incalculable ways. Given the nature of the Defendant’s criminal conduct and the impact and the harm to the public, the United States believes that an appropriate sentence at this time would fall at the low end of the advisory Sentencing Guidelines. RNS was the most infamous and successful Internet music piracy group in history. It procured thousands of albums and made them available illegally on the Internet. It procured albums from production plants, from radio stations, and from retail establishments prior to their commercial release.


RNS utilized serious security measures and took other steps to avoid detection by law enforcement, including using encryption on their chat sessions, locating many of its servers overseas, using a referral system that reduced the chances of infiltration, breaking of copyright protections on encoded discs, timing events to reduce the chances of exposing group members, and comparmentalizing tasks within a hierarchal organization. Rather than operating as a group of friends interested in music, it operated as a business, and, rather than money, that business was designed to get access for its members of every copyrighted work that ever existed. While individual infringement may be of limited harm (such as making a copy of an album for a next door neighbor), the collective effect of RNS’s activities were felt around the world. News of a single album by an artist being released on the Internet in digitally-perfect form prior to its commercial release resulted in hundreds of thousands of downloads by the public, and a potential loss of millions to the artist and the recording label. Simply put, the actions of the group were not a hobby; it was a group of thieves on a massive scale.


The activities of this group had such a wide ranging impact on the recording industry that, eventually, the music labels started discussing the likely impact of illegal RNS releases of their commercial albums prior to their actual theft.


The vastness of the impact of the harm makes it nearly impossible for the government or the Court to determine all the victims of RNS’s conduct and to calculate restitution for them. As such, the government has not sought restitution from the Defendant and his co-conspirators. It is worth noting, however, that it is because the harm is so large that such a calculation of restitution is daunting, rather than it being a factor to be consider in the defendants’ favor. The conduct of the Defendant, his co-conspirators, and intellectual property thieves around the world must be deterred. A sentence at the bottom end of the advisory Sentencing Guidelines would provide that deterrence. To depart below the guidelines range would send a clear message that the Court does not take the massive theft of copyrighted works seriously enough, since RNS was the most pervasive and infamous Internet piracy group in history. It 1 should make no difference from a sentencing perspective that this theft took primarily took place over the Internet, rather than a physical space. Theft is theft.


With respect to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6), which deals with sentencing disparities, the Government would note for the Court that no Internet piracy case is truly comparable with the RNS conspiracy. Technically, as indicated in the Pre-Sentence Report, there are a number of prior cases that involved similar conduct (“Apocalypse Production Crew” and “Drink or Die”) but none of them were similar in scope and impact to the RNS conspiracy. From simply a numbers standpoint, members of APC, who with exception of one individual who went to trial, agreed to a valuation of $30,000 to $70,000 of the conspiracy’s conduct. The one member of APC who went to trial was given a valuation of $100,000 to $200,000 by U.S. District Judge Liam O’Grady (U.S. v. Barry Gitarts) and was sentenced to 18 months in prison. Here, the agreed-upon valuation is $1,000,000 to $2,500,000, which, according to the sentencing guidelines, should command a significantly higher sentence of imprisonment (which the bottom of the guideline range would accomplish).


Unlike APC, which mostly involved distributing unlawful copies of music that had already been released, RNS was recognized as the world-leader in acquiring copies of pre-release music; that is, music that was not yet commercially available. The reason for a large part of that success was based on the fact that the group had two members, including Defendant, who worked in the music CD production plant in North Carolina. These individuals were able to procure many of the hottest albums of the last decade and provide them to RNS. No other music piracy group had that kind of regular access to pre-release materials. So, also unlike APC, the parties have agreed to the new additional two-point enhancement for pre-commercial works under Sentencing Guideline 2B5.3(b)(2).


Between the higher valuation and the pre-commercial enhancement, the properly calculated offense total under the advisory Sentencing Guidelines for RNS members is more than double that of APC members and the sentences should reflect that reality. Defendant dealt directly with the leader of RNS for years and gave him albums significantly before they were commercially available.


Based on the argument advanced by the government, the prosecution asked the court to sentence some of these defendants to almost 60 months in prison, the maximum possible sentence for a music piracy case based on a conspiracy copyright infringement case.

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Access Device Fraud Charges in Federal Court

Access device fraud charges, whether in the Eastern District of Virginia, Southern District of Texas, the Arkansas Federal Courts, or any other Federal Court, can result in a felony conviction.  The charges may carry up to 10 years in a Federal prison and a fine of up to $250,000.00.  The main statute utilized for this type of prosecution is 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1029.

These charges are commonly brought when the government alleges that a person knowingly transfer, possess, or use, without lawful authority the credit card or means of identification (many times computer access fraud charges are filed in conjunction with identity theft charges).  The means of identification may include social security numbers and other identifiable information.

Just like any Federal criminal charges (or cybercrime accusations), whether in the Eastern District of Virginia, the Southern District of Texas in Houston, the Arkansas Federal Courts, or any other Federal court require competent assistance.  With a solid technical educational background and experience, Domingo J. Rivera may assist you in defending against Fraud in Connection with Access Devices charges in Federal Court.  In Virginia, many of these cases are typically handled in the Richmond Division of the Eastern District of Virginia.

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Cybercrime case: "Not Guilty"

Jury Returns Not Guilty Verdict in Federal Court "Music Piracy" Case - Defendant Represented by Cyber Lawyer Domingo J. Rivera, Esq.

Press release

Cyber Lawyer Blog Article

Initial Thoughts

Criminal Copyright Infringement – U.S. v. Cassim, et al. – Part 2

Government Press Release and Initial Court Appearance for Internet case involving conspiracy to infringe copyright.

The charge was conspiracy to commit copyright infringement.  Attorney Domingo J. Rivera represented the "lead" Defendant (the Government's allegation). To our knowledge, this is the only "Not Guilty" jury verdict obtained for this type of case in Federal Court.  The majority of charges culminate in guilty pleas.

Just as customary in Federal Internet related criminal cases, after obtaining the indictment, the Government issued its press release.

The headline read: FOUR MEMBERS OF ALLEGED INTERNET MUSIC PIRACY GROUP CHARGED
WITH COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT CONSPIRACY


The body of the press release continued on...
WASHINGTON — Four individuals were indicted today by a federal grand jury in the
Eastern District of Virginia with conspiracy to commit copyright infringement for allegedly obtaining
and illegally releasing copyrighted music, announced Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal
Division Lanny A. Breuer and U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Dana J. Boente.


Adil R. Cassim, 29, of Granada Hills, Calif.; Bennie Glover, 35, of Shelby, N.C.; Matthew D.
Chow, 28, of Missouri City, Texas; and Edward L. Mohan, II, 46, of Baltimore, were charged in the
one-count indictment with being high-level members of the music piracy group known as “Rabid
Neurosis” or “RNS”, which operated from at least 1999 to 2007.  According to the indictment, the
defendants, led by Cassim for a period of time, allegedly conspired to illegally upload to RNS
thousands of copyright protected music files, which were often subsequently reproduced and
distributed hundreds of thousands of times.


According to the indictment, RNS was a “first-provider” or “release group” for pirated
music and other content to the Internet.  Once a group obtains and prepares infringing digital copies
of copyrighted works, the copies can then be distributed in a matter of hours to secure computer
servers throughout the world.  According to the indictment, RNS members were granted access to
massive libraries of pirated music, video games, software and movies by gaining a reputation for
providing previously unavailable pirated materials.  The indictment alleges that the supply of pre-
release music was often provided by music industry insiders, such as employees of compact disc
(CD) manufacturing plants, radio stations and retailers, who typically receive advance copies of
music prior to its commercial release.


The indictment also alleges that members of RNS, including Glover, illegally procured some
of the music the group illegally released before its commercial release date from a CD manufacturing
plant in North Carolina.   Other members of RNS, including Mohan and Chow, allegedly purchased
CDs from retail stores shortly after their commercial release and posted them to the Internet before
other piracy groups were able to do so.


If convicted, defendants face a maximum sentence of five years in prison, a $250,000 fine and
three years of supervised release, as well as possible orders of restitution.


And the press release continued on....Govertnment Press Release

Then came the initial appearance, the date for arguments on Motions was set, and a jury trial was schedule in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.  Initial Scheduling Order

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Criminal Copyright Infringement - U.S. v. Cassim, et al. - Part 1

I have received many e-mails with questions regarding the recent jury trial of United States v. Cassim, et. al, case number 4:09CR609 (S.D. Tx. 2010).  We represented the defendant in that case where the jury returned a not guilty verdict after a five-day jury trial.  The charge was conspiracy to commit copyright infringement.  To our knowledge, this is the only "Not Guilty" jury verdict obtained for this type of case in Federal Court.  The majority of charges culminate in guilty pleas.

To filter some of these inquiries, I will provide here some of the publicly available documents in that case as well as some thoughts.  It was certainly a very favorable result and it appears to be the first time that the U.S. Department of Justice loses a trial of this type.  Having said that, the information that will be posted here is for informational purposes only and is not in any way, shape or form, legal advice.  You should not rely on any information contained here and should address any legal questions to an attorney of your choice.  Please also be aware that being charged with a crime, particularly in Federal Court, is very serious.  The F.B.I. is the most competent investigative agency in the U.S. and the Department of Justice attorneys are some of the finest.

With that out of the way, part one in this case was the initial indictment, which was brought up in Virginia.  The case was ultimately tried in Texas, but that is a topic for a different day.  Suffice to say that this case took several months and went cross-country, culminating in a five-day jury trial and a "Not Guilty" verdict.

Follow the link below to see the "Rabid Neurosis" (RNS) Indictment, this is how it began:

U.S. v. Cassim Virginia Indicment

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Home

VIRGINIA COMPUTER AND INTERNET CRIMES DEFENSE

Computer Engineer / Internet Lawyer / Technology Expert ... High Tech Crimes Require the Expertise of a High-Tech Attorney.... A computer crime defense lawyer with our firm is an aggressive Internet crime defense litigator and a computer technical expert.  With criminal prosecution expertise, IT experience, Computer Engineering background, our computer crime defense and Internet law firm counts with unique capabilities.

Based on our research, Domingo J. Rivera is the only Internet crime defense attorney in Virginia with a professional degree in Computer Engineering, experience as a military officer, and knowledge of computer forensics.

Accused of a computer crime, Internet crime, or cyber crime in Virginia?
We are experts in Computer Crime Defense...

Whether you are accused of:

  • Criminal computer hacking, or computer unauthorized access - A cyber crime defense lawyer with our firm can provide you with expert defense against charges of hacking, unauthorized access or violations of the Computer Trespassing and Computer Fraud statutes.

  • Computer solicitation of a minor over the Internet - Most states, including Virginia, have created federally funded computer cyber crime units that specialize in posing as minors on Internet chat rooms.  A cyber crime defense lawyer with our firm is an aggressive computer crime defense lawyer who can provide you with expert legal assistant when your freedom is on the line

  • Internet identity theft and aggravated identity theft - If you are accused of the cyber crime of Identity Theft, aggravated identity theft, trafficking access devices, stolen credit cards, or social security numbers, an Identity theft cyber crime defense attorney from our firm can provide you with expert computer crime expertise.

  • Internet violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Access Device Fraud, and Trafficking in Passwords -  An Internet cyber crime attorney with our firm is an expert in interpreting and applying the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

  • Internet violation of the Virginia Computer crime statutes - Virginia is a pioneer State in the development of technology. Virginia also have some of the toughest cyber crime statutes.  A computer crime defense lawyer practicing in Virginia must have the required legal know-how and technical expertise to provide a competent cyber crime defense.

  • Virginia computer trespass under the Virginia Computer Crimes Act - Virginia computer trespass is a serious cyber crime.  Even acts that may be innocent in nature may cause prosecution for making a computer "malfunction."  A cyber crime defense lawyer from our firm understands all the elements and the strategy required to provide you with a competent defense.

  • Virginia computer fraud under the Virginia Computer Crimes Act -  Virginia computer fraud is the Internet age crime of obtaining property by false pretenses.  Our computer crime defense attorneys are expert in defending you against this an all cyber crimes.

  • Unauthorized transmission of bulk or unsolicited email (SPAM) under the Virginia Computer Crimes Act - Many business and individuals operating on the Internet send commercial email that may not fully comply with the CAN-SPAM Act.  If you are facing computer crime charges stemming from sending bulk mail, a cyber crime defense  lawyer with our firm can provide you with the required expertise to protect your freedom.

  • Theft of computer services under the Virginia Computer Crimes Act - Is using your neighbor's wireless Internet signal a crime?  A cybercrime defense lawyer with our firm can provide you with expert compter crime law advice and cyber crime defense.

  • Computer embezzlement under the Virginia Computer Crimes Act - An unauthorized download of computer software is a cyber crime that may carry up to 20 years in prison! A cyber crime defense attorney from our firm can aggressively ensure that your rights and freedom are defended.

  • Computer as an instrument of forgery under the Virginia Computer Crimes Act - A teenager who uses his computer to create a fake driver's license to be able to buy a drink can be accused of a serious cyber felony.  The expert assistance of a cyber crime defense lawyer who is also a technology expert can ensure that no doors are left unopened when your freedom is at stake.

  • Possession of Internet child pornography - A person caught with innocent baby pictures may be convicted of a felony and required to register as a sex offender.  A computer crime defense lawyer with our firm can assist you to protect your rights and reputation... your freedom and ability to find suitable housing and employment are at stake.

  • Criminal computer invasion of privacy under the Virginia Computer Crimes Act - Checking your cheating spouse's bank account records online can land you a jail sentence!  The assistance of a competent cyber crime defense attorney is critical to properly defend you against this Internet crime accusations.

  • Cyber stalking - The wrong email sent at the wrong time can lead to cyber crime accusations.  Overly sensitive people in cyber space can cause you to be facing a jury in defense of your freedom.  Our computer crime defense attorneys can provide you with expert cyber crime defense.

  • Criminal Copyright Infringement - An improperly channeled entrepreneurial spirit could cost you... downloading, sharing, or selling songs, movies, software, documents, or other files may cost you a Federal prison sentence.  We can assist you with our unique expertise in Computer forensics and technology.

  • Any other Virginia computer or cyber crime


[Back to the Top]

If your computer crime defense lawyer is not familiar with technology, computer forensics, and the Internet you are already at a severe disadvantage! If you are accused of a cybercrime in Virginia, you are better served with expert computer crime, cyber crime, and Virginia Internet crime legal representation!

Domingo J. Rivera is the only cyber crime defense lawyer in Virginia who has a background in Computer Engineering, MBA, and experience with critical projects with the U.S. Department of Defense and a wealth of knowledge in computer forensics.  He has also tried hundreds of civil and criminal cases and has highly polished and current practical courtroom skills.

As a Computer Engineer, Domingo J. Rivera can analyze your Virginia computer and cyber crime case in a unique manner.  The Commonwealth of Virginia and the Federal prosecutors in Virginia count with technical experts to assist with the prosecution of Virginia computer crimes.... how will you fight back?  Can your criminal defense attorney even understand the computer lingo?  Can your attorney effectively explain technology matters to a judge who probably does not have a computer background himself.  The Court needs to be educated before it can be persuaded.  Can your Virginia criminal defense lawyer explain what he may not understand? If not, you better pray for mercy from the prosecutor or the judge... and hope you get it.

When you need the expertise of a Virginia computer and cyber crime defense attorney who understands the computer forensic methods employed by law enforcement, you can enlist our technological expertise.  We understand not only the Internet and computer applications, but also have experience in computer forensics and analysis of electronic evidence. Not many cyber crime defense law firms can offer you attorneys with technical degrees and experience in Computer Engineering as well as hundreds of successful criminal trials.

Our aggressive Internet and computer cyber crime defense attorneys have unique qualifications and expertise and can handle all Virginia computer cybercrime issues.

If you are accused of a cybercrime, a Virginia computer crime, or a Virginia Internet crime, we are the experts that can defend you and protect your rights.

Your freedom depends on it!

[Back to the Top]

When you need the assistance of a Virginia computer crime defense lawyer, Internet crime lawyer, cyber crime defense attorney, computer fraud defense attorney, computer trespass defense lawyer, SPAM email defense attorney, aggravated identity theft defense, Virginia Internet crime defense lawyer, or a cybercrime law expert, a Virginia computer cyber crime defense lawyer with our firm can assist.  We handle computer crime cases throughout Virginia including without limitation Fairfax County, Henrico County, Richmond City, Chesterfield County, Hanover County, Petersburg County, Prince William County, Hopewell, Petersburg, Dinwiddie, Quantico, Virginia Beach, Norfolk, Chesapeake, Fredericksburg, Stafford, Spotsylvania, Newport News, Hampton, Williamsburg, Amelia, Powhatan, Goochland, Louisa, Manassas, Woodbridge, Charles City, James City, Gloucester, Portsmouth, Shenandoah, Prince George, Sussex, New Kent, West End of Richmond, Glen Allen, Federal Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Richmond, Alexandria, Norfolk, and Newport News Divisions).

Contact a Virginia computer cybercrime defense attorney.

Legal Disclaimer: The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an Internet lawyer for advice regarding your individual Internet law situation. We invite you to contact us and welcome your calls, letters and electronic mail. Contacting us to discuss your Internet law matter does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not send any confidential information to us until such time as an attorney-client relationship has been established and we have been retained as your Internet lawyer.

Domingo J. Rivera is the attorney responsible for the contents of this website.  Please direct all questions to: Domingo J. Rivera, Attorney at Law, PLC, Attn: Internet Advertisement, 4870 Sadler Road, Suite 300, Glen Allen, VA 23060.Index

VA Cybercrime Issues

VIRGINIA CYBERCRIME ISSUES

Our Virginia Internet Crime Defense Lawyers assist clients with Virginia Computer Crimes law and Cyber Crime.  In our daily Virginia Computer Crime Defense Lawyer practice, we protect our client's rights and freedom from Virginia Cyber Crime accusations.  Some examples are listed below, other computer crime cases are listed here:

  • Individual accused of selling counterfeit medications over the Internet.  The assistance of a Virginia computer crime defense attorney is essential to protecting the individual's freedom.

  • E-Commerce website operator  faces charges  of Internet criminal copyright infringement.  A Virginia cyber crime defense attorney  intervenes to protect the website operator's freedom.

  • College student is accused of computer hacking, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, computer trespass, computer fraud, and a long list of other computer crimes.  A Virginia Cybercrime defense lawyer intervenes to clear up these computer crime accusations and allow the young man to continue his promising IT career.

  • An individual faces computer trespass and hacking/unauthorized access accusations after retrieving emails from his unfaithful spouse's email account.  Prompt assistance from a Virginia computer crimes defense attorney is critical.

  • Individual charged with felony transmission of unsolicited bulk email (SPAM).  The intervention of a Virginia SPAM computer crime defense attorney is necessary.

  • Our client is arrested for obstruction of justice charges after being the victim of identity theft.  The crimes were committed by the identity thief.  A Virginia computer crime defense attorney with our firm intervenes to clear our client's reputation which was affected as a result of the cyber crime of Identity Theft.

  • Our client is accused of eight counts Internet solicitation of a minor related to an undercover sting operation where a police office played the role of a teenage girl in an Internet chat room.

  • High profile government executive with a high level security clearance is arrested for receipt, possession, and distribution of child pornography.  A computer crime defense attorney must manage the defense to prevent the Internet child pornography accusations from ruining his life.

  • Our client is accused of violations of  § 18.2-374.3 (Use of communications systems to facilitate certain offenses involving children).

  • Our client is accused of running an illegal business on the Internet and of related tax evation.


When you need the assistance of a Virginia computer crime defense lawyer, cyber crime defense attorney, computer fraud defense attorney, computer trespass defense lawyer, SPAM email defense attorney, Virginia Internet crime defense lawyer, or a cybercrime law attorney, a Virginia computer cyber crime defense lawyer with our firm can assist.

Virginia_Internet_Crimes

VIRGINIA INTERNET CRIMES

Our Internet computer crime, cyber crime defense and Internet crime defense attorneys are experienced in defending against Virginia State and Federal cyber crime, computer crime, and Internet crime accusations.

Some of the most common cyber crimes are:

The Computer Fraud and abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030 – Creates both civil and criminal liability.  To prove violations of the the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the State must prove that a Defendant 1) Knowingly obtained 2)  Access to a computer; 3)  Without authorization; 4) to obtain information; 5) From a protected computer; and 6) said conduct involved Interstate or foreign communication.

Our attorneys are experienced in the defense of accusations of violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

Virginia Computer Trespass, Va. Code § 18.2-152.4 - Creates both civil and criminal liability.  It is defined as using a computer to make a copy of computer data without authorization.  Our Virginia cyber crime law attorneys can defend you if you are accused of computer trespass in Virginia.

Virginia Computer Related Trespass to Chattels - Contact with a computer network without authorization thereby causing injury.

Cyber stalking – Cyber stalking is a crime in which the defendant is accused of harassing a victim through the use of electronic communications such as email, instant messaging, or forum posts.

Identity Theft – The Defendant is accused of operating a scheme under which he obtains personal information of another. The Defendant is accused of utilizing this information for many purposes, including to get credit, engage in other criminal activity for which the victim can be blamed. If you are accused of identity theft, you need a quality identity theft lawyer to represent your interests.

Internet sex crimes including Internet Child pornography, Solicitation of a minor via chat room, and Entrapment by Police Officers posing as juveniles.  Any actual use or possession of child pornographic material is a crime. Both the federal government and Virginia are aggressively prosecuting those charged with child pornography. The penalties are extremely severe.

Email Spoofing

EMAIL SPOOFING
Email spoofing is the forgery of an e-mail header in a manner that the message appears to have originated from somewhere other than the actual source.   Email Spoofing is a serious Internet Crime. Allegations of creating a false email header,  email header forgery, or sending a spoofed email are serious cyber crimes accusations requiring the experience of a computer crime defense attorney.

Email spoofing accusations fall under Email SPAM laws.  A spoofed may appear to be from a legitimate source asking for personal information, passwords, credit card numbers, and other personal information.

Email spoofing is a serious criminal accusation.  Potential penalties for Email spoofing include imprisonment and forfeiture of assets.   Our attorneys are experts in cybercrime defense and in protecting your rights and assets against accusations of criminal email spoofing.

Computer Embezzlement

COMPUTER EMBEZZLEMENT

Under Virginia law, the following property is capable of computer embezzlement: 1. Computers and computer networks; 2. Financial instruments, computer data, computer programs, computer software, computer services and all other personal property regardless of whether they are: tangible or intangible, in a format readable by humans or by a computer, in transit between computers or within a computer network or between any devices which comprise a computer or located on any paper or in any device on which it is stored by a computer or by a human.

If the value of the property or services embezzled is $200 or more, Virginia computer embezzlement carries a potential prison sentence of up to twenty years.

Cyber Stalking

CYBER STALKING

Cyber stalking is a crime in which the alleged attacker harasses a victim using electronic communications, for example email, instant messaging, blog messages, or forum posts. Cyber stalking involves threats to a specific victim.

Penalties for cyber stalking include fines and imprisonment.  If you are facing a cyber stalking accusation you need the assistance of a cyber crime defense lawyer experienced in Internet harassing and cyber stalking defense.

Computer Trespass

COMPUTER TRESPASS

Computer trespass is the use of a computer or computer network without authority and with the intent to remove computer data, computer programs, or computer software from a computer or computer network, cause a computer to malfunction, alter or erase any computer data, computer programs, or computer software, effect the creation or alteration of a financial instrument or of an electronic transfer of funds, cause physical injury to the property of another, or make an unauthorized copy, of computer data, computer programs, or computer software residing in, communicated by, or produced by a computer or computer network.

Computer trespass carries severe criminal penalties, including large fines and jail time.
A computer trespass defense lawyer with our firm is experienced in protecting your freedom if you are accused of computer trespass.

Computer Fraud

COMPUTER FRAUD

Computer fraud is the use of a computer or a computer network without authority and with the intent to obtain property or services by false pretenses, embezzle or commit Internet larceny or use a computer to convert the property of another.

Computer and Internet fraud and abuse is a serious accusation.  Computer fraud and computer hacking are a felony in many jurisdictions.

If you are accused of computer fraud, you require the assistance of a cyber crime defense attorney.  A computer crime defense attorney from our firm has the required expertise to protect your freedom and assets against a computer fraud accusation.

Bulk Email (SPAM)

UNSOLICITED BULK EMAIL - SPAM

A prosecution for Virginia SPAM email or transmission of unsolicited bulk electronic mail requires proof that the accused "spammer" engaged in the following acts: Use of a computer or computer network with the intent to falsify or forge electronic mail transmission information or other routing information in any manner in connection with the transmission of unsolicited bulk electronic mail through or into the computer network of an electronic mail service provider or its subscribers; or knowingly sell, gives, or otherwise distribute or possesses with the intent to sell, give, or distribute software that a. is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of facilitating or enabling the falsification of electronic mail transmission information or other routing information; b. has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to facilitate or enable the falsification of electronic mail transmission information or other routing information; or c. is marketed by that person acting alone or with another for use in facilitating or enabling the falsification of electronic mail transmission information or other routing information.

For a felony Internet email SPAM prosecution, the government will also have to prove that: the volume of unauthorized bulk email transmitted exceeded 10,000 attempted recipients in any 24-hour period, 100,000 attempted recipients in any 30-day time period, or one million attempted recipients in any one-year time period; or the revenue generated from a specific unauthorized bulk email transmission exceeded $1,000 or the total revenue generated from all unauthorized bulk email transmitted to any EMSP exceeded $50,000.

Our Virginia SPAM defense attorneys can provide you with Internet email SPAM defense against SPAM accusations.

Virginia Computer Crimes

VIRGINIA COMPUTER CRIMES

In Virginia, computer crimes are codified under the Virginia Computer Crimes Act.  Some Virginia computer crimes include:

  • SPAM/ Unsolicited or bulk electronic mail - In Virginia, criminal transmission of SPAM email occurs when someone uses a computer to forge email transmission information or distributes  software primarily for that purpose.

  • Computer Trespass- In Virginia, computer trespass is unauthorized use of a computer or computer network to remove data or computer software, alter or erase data or software, transfer funds, or make an unauthorized copy of data or software.

  • Computer Invasion of Privacy

  • Computer Fraud - In Virginia, computer fraud is using a computer without authority to obtain property or services by false pretenses, embezzle or commit larceny.

  • Computer Embezzlement

  • Theft of Computer Services

  • Use of a Computer as an Instrument of Forgery.

Identity Theft - Forged Identification Document

IDENTITY THEFT

In Virginia, identity theft is a serious criminal accusation. The charges associated with identity theft include both felonies and misdemeanors.  When you are charged with identity theft related to your Internet activities you need an effective criminal defense attorney who is also experienced in technology.  Internet identity theft charges include assuming the identity of another, identity fraud, online forgery, access device fraud, credit card fraud, transmission and trafficking in private information and social security numbers, online bank fraud, Internet insurance fraud, and money laundering through the Internet.

If you are accused of Internet identity theft, our team of successful attorneys, Internet technical professional, and Computer Engineers can provide you with Internet identity theft defense.

In the Federal Courts, including the Eastern District of Virginia's Richmond, Norfolk, and Newport News Divisions, a conviction for identity theft, when charged and convicted as aggravated identity theft, carries a mandatory minimum sentence of two years in prison.  Identity theft may carry up to 30 yars in prison.  The most relevant federal identity theft statutes are:

28 USC 1028 - Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information

28 USC 1028A - Aggravated Identity Theft

28 U.S.C. 1028

(a) Whoever, in a circumstance described in subsection (c) of this section - (1) knowingly and without lawful authority produces an identification document, authentication feature, or a false identification document; (2) knowingly transfers an identification document, authentication feature, or a false identification document knowing that such document or feature was stolen or produced without lawful authority; (3) knowingly possesses with intent to use unlawfully or transfer unlawfully five or more identification documents (other than those issued lawfully for the use of the possessor), authentication features, or false identification documents; (4) knowingly possesses an identification document (other than one issued lawfully for the use of the possessor), authentication feature, or a false identification document, with the intent such document or feature be used to defraud the United States; (5) knowingly produces, transfers, or possesses a document-making implement or authentication feature with the intent such document-making implement or authentication feature will be used in the production of a false identification document or another document-making implement or authentication feature which will be so used; (6) knowingly possesses an identification document or authentication feature that is or appears to be an identification document or authentication feature of the United States which is stolen or produced without lawful authority knowing that such document or feature was stolen or produced without such authority; (7) knowingly transfers or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, any unlawful activity that constitutes a violation of Federal law, or that constitutes a felony under any applicable State or local law; or (8) knowingly traffics in false authentication features for use in false identification documents, document-making implements, or means of identification; shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section. (b) The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) of this section is - (1) except as provided in paragraphs (3) and (4), a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 15 years, or both, if the offense is - (A) the production or transfer of an identification document, authentication feature, or false identification document that is or appears to be - (i) an identification document or authentication feature issued by or under the authority of the United States; or (ii) a birth certificate, or a driver's license or personal identification card; (B) the production or transfer of more than five identification documents, authentication features, or false identification documents; (C) an offense under paragraph (5) of such subsection; or (D) an offense under paragraph (7) of such subsection that involves the transfer or use of 1 or more means of identification if, as a result of the offense, any individual committing the offense obtains anything of value aggregating $1,000 or more during any 1-year period; (2) except as provided in paragraphs (3) and (4), a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than three years, or both, if the offense is - (A) any other production, transfer, or use of a means of identification, an identification document,,(!1) authentication feature, or a false identification document; or (B) an offense under paragraph (3) or (7) of such subsection; (3) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both, if the offense is committed - (A) to facilitate a drug trafficking crime (as defined in section 929(a)(2)); (B) in connection with a crime of violence (as defined in section 924(c)(3)); or (C) after a prior conviction under this section becomes final; (4) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 25 years, or both, if the offense is committed to facilitate an act of international terrorism (as defined in section 2331(1) of this title); (5) in the case of any offense under subsection (a), forfeiture to the United States of any personal property used or intended to be used to commit the offense; and (6) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case. (c) The circumstance referred to in subsection (a) of this section is that - (1) the identification document, authentication feature, or false identification document is or appears to be issued by or under the authority of the United States or the document-making implement is designed or suited for making such an identification document, authentication feature, or false identification document; (2) the offense is an offense under subsection (a)(4) of this section; or (3) either - (A) the production, transfer, possession, or use prohibited by this section is in or affects interstate or foreign commerce, including the transfer of a document by electronic means; or (B) the means of identification, identification document, false identification document, or document-making implement is transported in the mail in the course of the production, transfer, possession, or use prohibited by this section. (d) In this section - (1) the term "authentication feature" means any hologram, watermark, certification, symbol, code, image, sequence of numbers or letters, or other feature that either individually or in combination with another feature is used by the issuing authority on an identification document, document-making implement, or means of identification to determine if the document is counterfeit, altered, or otherwise falsified; (2) the term "document-making implement" means any implement, impression, template, computer file, computer disc, electronic device, or computer hardware or software, that is specifically configured or primarily used for making an identification document, a false identification document, or another document-making implement; (3) the term "identification document" means a document made or issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, political subdivision of a State, a foreign government, political subdivision of a foreign government, an international governmental or an international quasi-governmental organization which, when completed with information concerning a particular individual, is of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purpose of identification of individuals; (4) the term "false identification document" means a document of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purposes of identification of individuals that - (A) is not issued by or under the authority of a governmental entity or was issued under the authority of a governmental entity but was subsequently altered for purposes of deceit; and (B) appears to be issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, a political subdivision of a State, a foreign government, a political subdivision of a foreign government, or an international governmental or quasi-governmental organization; (5) the term "false authentication feature" means an authentication feature that - (A) is genuine in origin, but, without the authorization of the issuing authority, has been tampered with or altered for purposes of deceit; (B) is genuine, but has been distributed, or is intended for distribution, without the authorization of the issuing authority and not in connection with a lawfully made identification document, document-making implement, or means of identification to which such authentication feature is intended to be affixed or embedded by the respective issuing authority; or (C) appears to be genuine, but is not; (6) the term "issuing authority" - (A) means any governmental entity or agency that is authorized to issue identification documents, means of identification, or authentication features; and (B) includes the United States Government, a State, a political subdivision of a State, a foreign government, a political subdivision of a foreign government, or an international government or quasi-governmental organization; (7) the term "means of identification" means any name or number that may be used, alone or in conjunction with any other information, to identify a specific individual, including any - (A) name, social security number, date of birth, official State or government issued driver's license or identification number, alien registration number, government passport number, employer or taxpayer identification number; (B) unique biometric data, such as fingerprint, voice print, retina or iris image, or other unique physical representation; (C) unique electronic identification number, address, or routing code; or (D) telecommunication identifying information or access device (as defined in section 1029(e)); (8) the term "personal identification card" means an identification document issued by a State or local government solely for the purpose of identification; (9) the term "produce" includes alter, authenticate, or assemble; (10) the term "transfer" includes selecting an identification document, false identification document, or document-making implement and placing or directing the placement of such identification document, false identification document, or document-making implement on an online location where it is available to others; (11) the term "State" includes any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any other commonwealth, possession, or territory of the United States; and (12) the term "traffic" means - (A) to transport, transfer, or otherwise dispose of, to another, as consideration for anything of value; or (B) to make or obtain control of with intent to so transport, transfer, or otherwise dispose of. (e) This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of a law enforcement agency of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or of an intelligence agency of the United States, or any activity authorized under chapter 224 of this title. (f) Attempt and Conspiracy. - Any person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy. (g) Forfeiture Procedures. - The forfeiture of property under this section, including any seizure and disposition of the property and any related judicial or administrative proceeding, shall be governed by the provisions of section 413 (other than subsection (d) of that section) of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. (h) Forfeiture; Disposition. - In the circumstance in which any person is convicted of a violation of subsection (a), the court shall order, in addition to the penalty prescribed, the forfeiture and destruction or other disposition of all illicit authentication features, identification documents, document-making implements, or means of identification. (i) Rule of Construction. - For purpose of subsection (a)(7), a single identification document or false identification document that contains 1 or more means of identification shall be construed to be 1 means of identification.

[Top of Page]

28 U.S.C. 1028A

(a) Offenses.— (1) In general.— Whoever, during and in relation to any felony violation enumerated in subsection (c), knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such felony, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years. (2) Terrorism offense.— Whoever, during and in relation to any felony violation enumerated in section 2332b (g)(5)(B), knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person or a false identification document shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such felony, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 5 years. (b) Consecutive Sentence.— Notwithstanding any other provision of law— (1) a court shall not place on probation any person convicted of a violation of this section; (2) except as provided in paragraph (4), no term of imprisonment imposed on a person under this section shall run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment imposed on the person under any other provision of law, including any term of imprisonment imposed for the felony during which the means of identification was transferred, possessed, or used; (3) in determining any term of imprisonment to be imposed for the felony during which the means of identification was transferred, possessed, or used, a court shall not in any way reduce the term to be imposed for such crime so as to compensate for, or otherwise take into account, any separate term of imprisonment imposed or to be imposed for a violation of this section; and (4) a term of imprisonment imposed on a person for a violation of this section may, in the discretion of the court, run concurrently, in whole or in part, only with another term of imprisonment that is imposed by the court at the same time on that person for an additional violation of this section, provided that such discretion shall be exercised in accordance with any applicable guidelines and policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to section 994 of title 28. (c) Definition.— For purposes of this section, the term “felony violation enumerated in subsection (c)” means any offense that is a felony violation of— (1) section 641 (relating to theft of public money, property, or rewards [1]), section 656 (relating to theft, embezzlement, or misapplication by bank officer or employee), or section 664 (relating to theft from employee benefit plans); (2) section 911 (relating to false personation of citizenship); (3) section 922 (a)(6) (relating to false statements in connection with the acquisition of a firearm); (4) any provision contained in this chapter (relating to fraud and false statements), other than this section or section 1028 (a)(7); (5) any provision contained in chapter 63 (relating to mail, bank, and wire fraud); (6) any provision contained in chapter 69 (relating to nationality and citizenship); (7) any provision contained in chapter 75 (relating to passports and visas); (8) section 523 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. 6823) (relating to obtaining customer information by false pretenses); (9) section 243 or 266 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1253 and 1306) (relating to willfully failing to leave the United States after deportation and creating a counterfeit alien registration card); (10) any provision contained in chapter 8 of title II of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1321 et seq.) (relating to various immigration offenses); or (11) section 208, 811, 1107(b), 1128B(a), or 1632 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 408, 1011, 1307 (b), 1320a–7b (a), and 1383a) (relating to false statements relating to programs under the Act).

Internet Solicitation Of Minor (Police Officer Posing As Child)

INTERNET SOLICITATION OF A MINOR - Legal Defense and Computer Forensics Expert Witness Services.

The chain of events leading to a prosecution for Internet solicitation of a minor usually begins when a "minor" will come into a chat room. Most times, this "minor" is a police officer. After some chatting, the minor suggests a meeting in person.... setting up the police sting operation.

The police will obtain a warrant an arrest warrant and charge the person with using a computer communications device to solicit a minor and with attempted indecent liberties with a minor. The police will also confiscate the person's computers.  At this point, you will not only need legal representation, but also computer forensics expertise to properly evaluate the case presented by the prosecution.  Computer forensics expertise is available to Virginia attorneys representing individuals accused of using a communications device to facilitate certain offenses involving minors, also known as Internet solicitation of a minor.  Most of these cases involve virtual interaction in chat rooms, with Yahoo as law enforcement's favorite tool.

In the absence of specialized legal representation, the presumption against bond may keep the person in jail for several months awaiting trial. A conviction may mean several years of jail time and lifetime registration as a sex offender, together with the social opprobrium associated with that term.

A person accused of this type of conduct requires the experience of an attorney who not only understands criminal defense but also has the technical experience to understand the underlying Internet technology.  Similarly, attorneys representing individuals accused of solicitation of a minor are better served through retaining a competent computer and information technology forensics expert.  Legal teams with both excellence and technology competence are necessary to effectively represent individuals accused of computer crimes in Virginia

The Virginia statute addressing Internet solicitation of a minor states as follows:

§ 18.2-374.3. Use of communications systems to facilitate certain offenses involving children.

A. As used in subsections C, D, and E "use a communications system" means making personal contact or direct contact through any agent or agency, any print medium, the United States mail, any common carrier or communication common carrier, any electronic communications system, the Internet, or any telecommunications, wire, computer network, or radio communications system.

B. It shall be unlawful for any person to use a communications system, including but not limited to computers or computer networks or bulletin boards, or any other electronic means for the purposes of procuring or promoting the use of a minor for any activity in violation of § 18.2-370 or § 18.2-374.1. A violation of this subsection is a Class 6 felony.

C. It shall be unlawful for any person 18 years of age or older to use a communications system, including but not limited to computers or computer networks or bulletin boards, or any other electronic means, for the purposes of soliciting, with lascivious intent, any person he knows or has reason to believe is a child less than 15 years of age to knowingly and intentionally:

1. Expose his sexual or genital parts to any child to whom he is not legally married or propose that any such child expose his sexual or genital parts to such person;

2. Propose that any such child feel or fondle the sexual or genital parts of such person or propose that such person feel or fondle the sexual or genital parts of any such child;

3. Propose to such child the performance of an act of sexual intercourse or any act constituting an offense under § 18.2-361; or

4. Entice, allure, persuade, or invite any such child to enter any vehicle, room, house, or other place, for any purposes set forth in the preceding subdivisions.

Any person who violates this subsection is guilty of a Class 5 felony. However, if the person is at least seven years older than the child he knows or has reason to believe is less than 15 years of age, the person shall be punished by a term of imprisonment of not less than five years nor more than 30 years in a state correctional facility, five years of which shall be mandatory minimum term of imprisonment. Any person who commits a second or subsequent violation of this subsection when the person is at least seven years older than the child he knows or has reason to believe is less than 15 years of age shall be punished by a term of imprisonment of not less than 10 years nor more than 40 years, 10 years of which shall be a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment.

D. Any person who uses a communications system, including but not limited to computers or computer networks or bulletin boards, or any other electronic means, for the purposes of soliciting, with lascivious intent, any child he knows or has reason to believe is at least 15 years of age but less than 18 years of age to knowingly and intentionally commit any of the activities listed in subsection C if the person is at least seven years older than the child is guilty of a Class 5 felony. Any person who commits a second or subsequent violation of this subsection shall be punished by a term of imprisonment of not less than one nor more than 20 years, one year of which shall be a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment.

E. Any person 18 years of age or older who uses a communications system, including but not limited to computers or computer networks or bulletin boards, or any other electronic means, for the purposes of soliciting any person he knows or has reason to believe is a child less than 18 years of age for (i) any activity in violation of § 18.2-355 or 18.2-361, (ii) any activity in violation of § 18.2-374.1, or (iii) a violation of § 18.2-374.1:1 is guilty of a Class 5 felony.

Cybercrime defense is the the area of criminal law where attorneys without knowledge of the Internet will not excel. Old school criminal defense lawyers with no technical experience will be unable to effectively question Internet evidence.  We have effectively defended these crimes and have a successful track record.

Defending against accusations of Internet solicitation of a minor (use of communications system to facilitate certain offenses involving minors) in Virginia, including:
Henrico, Richmond City, Chesterfield, Colonial Heights, Amelia, Dinwiddie, Nottoway, Petersburg, Powhatan, Albemarle, Charlottesville, Culpeper, Fluvanna, Goochland, Greene, Louisa, Madison, Orange, Fairfax, Prince William, Alexandria, Arlington, Fauquier, Loudoun, Rappahannock, Norfolk, Virginia Beach, Newport News, Hampton, Portsmouth, Isle of Wight, Suffolk, Chesapeake, Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania, Stafford, Caroline, Essex,, Hanover, King George, Lancaster, Northumberland, Richmond County, Westmoreland, Charles City, Gloucester, James City County/Williamsburg, King William, King and Queen, Mathews, Middlesex, New Kent, Williamsburg/James City County, York County, Poquoson.

Virginia Internet solicitation of a minor defense lawyer and defense computer forensics experts.

Possession Of Child Pornography

POSSESSION, RECEIPT, OR DISTRIBUTION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY

Virginia takes possession of child pornography very seriously, both in the State and Federal Court levels. With the widespread of the Internet, those looking to access child pornography usually are able to find it. Many fail to understand that mere possession, even if downloaded utilizing P2P software under a generic name, and even though you may not know what the files are, can land you a prosecution for receipt, possession, and even distribution of child pornography.

Internet Service Providers have attempted to block child pornography, to no avail. Local police departments and the FBI have taken over. You may receive child pornographic email in your junk mail. You may even copy the photos in a directory, view them as thumbnails, realize that the photos contain child pornography, and immediately delete them. These actions leave traces in your computer, even it you try to delete them.

If you are contacted by the FBI or local authorities or if you are charged with possession of child pornography, you need legal representation. Our attorneys are aggressive and effective criminal defense lawyers and also Computer Engineering experience. We can go to battle with the right tools to protect your freedom from charges of possession, receipt, or distribution of child pornography.

Representing clients accused of possession or distribution of child pornography in:
Henrico, Richmond City, Chesterfield, Colonial Heights, Amelia, Dinwiddie, Nottoway, Petersburg, Powhatan, Albemarle, Charlottesville, Culpeper, Fluvanna, Goochland, Greene, Louisa, Madison, Orange, Fairfax, Prince William, Alexandria, Arlington, Fauquier, Loudoun, Rappahannock, Norfolk, Virginia Beach, Newport News, Hampton, Portsmouth, Isle of Wight, Suffolk, Chesapeake, Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania, Stafford, Caroline, Essex,, Hanover, King George, Lancaster, Northumberland, Richmond County, Westmoreland, Charles City, Gloucester, James City County/Williamsburg, King William, King and Queen, Mathews, Middlesex, New Kent, Williamsburg/James City County, York County, Poquoson.

Virginia possession or distribution of child porn defense lawyer.

Hacking Unauthorized Access

HACKING AND UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO COMPUTER SYSTEMS


Under new cyber crime and computer laws, a person convicted of computer hacking, virus writing, and computer worm development could get 20 years to life in prison.


Sometimes out of curiosity, Internet website visitors may exceed the access authorized to them under their website access login and under the website's terms of use.  Even using commercially available scripts may generate serious computer crime accusation of hacking and unauthorized access to a computer network.


If you are facing an accusation of being a computer hacker, a cyber crime and hacking defense attorney from our firm is a technically competent attorney who understands the technical aspects of the Internet in order to provide you with a competent defense. A typical criminal defense attorney without computer knowledge may not understand many of the challenges that can be made against electronic evidence.