5 ms·

I'm from Lithuania, he is a Lithuanian citizen. What is interesting, that his wife told, that he is not capable to do this, because he was a small businessman i

by GBiT 8y ago

I'm from Lithuania, he is a Lithuanian citizen. What is interesting, that his wife told, that he is not capable to do this, because he was a small businessman in the construction business. His wife told, that he doesn't know how to use a computer properly for things like banking etc... USA asked for the extradition of this person, and my country gave him up, but he never was in USA. The only thing he said, is that he meet some guy in Russia, who wanted to do some business with him. It seems, that he was just a proxy. He never saw money... It's a very interesting story to look into because its not so simple how it looks from this post. https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=lt&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.15min.lt%2Fnaujiena%2Faktualu%2Fnusikaltimaiirnelaimes%2F100-mln-doleriu-vagyste-kaltinamo-lietuvio-zmona-jis-tam-neturi-smegenu-59-835398 https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=lt&tl=en&u=https%3...

megous 8y ago
He plead guilty and returned $50M. He also didn't have to be a computer hacker, just able to set up company and bank accounts abroad.
- calibas 8y ago
  It's "social engineering" part of information security and technically hacking. Smooth talking is often far more effective than "computer hacking".
UncleEntity 8y ago
I, for one, would blame "some guy in Russia" if the alternative was 30 years in prison... ...then plead guilty to all counts.
- sridca 8y ago
  Yes, but do we know the facts of the situation?
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > do we know the facts of the situation? We know he plead guilty and was in a position to return $50 million of stolen money. The top comment takes, on one hand, a mountain of criminal evidence, and weighs it against, on the other hand, things his wife said.
    - tunzy26 8y ago
      i think it's due to frustration. lol
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- GBiT 8y ago
  Well, I'm not saying he is not guilty, he is at some point, but this story is more than it says. It's possible he was only proxy. I see some comments say here, that with his talent he could do more, but he was only some none name construction businessman. But basically, in US I see, that a lot of people pleads guilty then it is more to the story. We don't know how much he will get for this and what deal he has. We see story, then person pleads to guilty and has to pay hundred million to later see, that they had other deal for him to pay just a few hundred thousands.
  - tedivm 8y ago
    If he was a proxy how did he return $50 million?
    - GBiT 8y ago
      It's not clear how he returned. We don't know if the accounts of companies were frozen or where the money went, etc... Or did you believe he returned it in Cash? Or maybe transferred from bank accounts where no one knew? It's not how the financial system works. Here in LT we had some few series about this man and some possible things how it went. This case wasn't public, but every news site had about 15-20 stories about it in two years time.
      - tedivm 8y ago
        You're missing the point of my question- if he was just a proxy he wouldn't be in control of the assets, so they'd have to go after the person he was proxying for to get the funds. The fact that he was able to return them shows that he was more than a proxy.
        coldtea 8y ago
        Or you know, he had $50M of his own that he "returned" (he was supposedly a businessman), while still being just a proxy to the other that actually stole the real stolen money.
- ada1981 8y ago
  Kinda worked for the DNC.
- coldtea 8y ago
  Would you, for one, please guilty to all counts and get 10 years if you were innocent, if the alternative was to e.g. risk being found guilty and get a prosecutorial suggested 30 years?
  - UncleEntity 8y ago
    Totally the wrong person to ask since I think it's appalling how prosecutors use that tactic to get innocent people in prison, if you don't take their deal they "throw the book at you" so your average (innocent) person has no chance unless they have a shitton of money to throw at their defense. Certainly wouldn't turn over $50 million if I were innocent.
ChuckMcM 8y ago
Pure speculation here based on your comment: What you describe is called "being a cutout", that is a person who is a proxy for the "real" person who committed the crime. If what you say is accurate, that there was a more sophisticated person who did the crime, there is motivation on his part to plead guilty and stop any further investigation with the assurance that the other party will take care of his family while he serves his time. (At least that is how it has worked in the US with organized crime from time to time). If you step back from the deed itself and look at the bigger picture, if they guy has never been charged before he probably gets a fairly light sentence (not Manafort light, but probably not 30 years), he comes out of it with his family taken care of, the real crook has $73M somewhere safe, and this guy probably doesn't have to work any more if he doesn't want to.
bradleyjg 8y ago
> USA asked for the extradition of this person, and my country gave him up, but he never was in USA. International law, in the form of the passive nationality principle, recognizes criminal jurisdiction in the country of which the victims are nationals regardless of whether the criminal has ever set foot there.
- londons_explore 8y ago
  Sort of odd to choose the victims location rather than the criminals location...
  - bradleyjg 8y ago
    I don't see what's odd about that. Suppose someone in New Jersey mailed a bomb to someone in NY, killing the victim when he opened the package. Jurisdiction over the murder would lie in NJ and NY. It wouldn't be any surprise if the prosecutors in NY (whether federal or local) were more gung ho about bring charges than those in NJ, after all it was one of their own that was killed.

by GBiT 8y ago

megous 8y ago

He plead guilty and returned $50M. He also didn't have to be a computer hacker, just able to set up company and bank accounts abroad.

calibas 8y ago
It's "social engineering" part of information security and technically hacking. Smooth talking is often far more effective than "computer hacking".

UncleEntity 8y ago

I, for one, would blame "some guy in Russia" if the alternative was 30 years in prison... ...then plead guilty to all counts.

sridca 8y ago
Yes, but do we know the facts of the situation?
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > do we know the facts of the situation? We know he plead guilty and was in a position to return $50 million of stolen money. The top comment takes, on one hand, a mountain of criminal evidence, and weighs it against, on the other hand, things his wife said.
  - tunzy26 8y ago
    i think it's due to frustration. lol
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
GBiT 8y ago
Well, I'm not saying he is not guilty, he is at some point, but this story is more than it says. It's possible he was only proxy. I see some comments say here, that with his talent he could do more, but he was only some none name construction businessman. But basically, in US I see, that a lot of people pleads guilty then it is more to the story. We don't know how much he will get for this and what deal he has. We see story, then person pleads to guilty and has to pay hundred million to later see, that they had other deal for him to pay just a few hundred thousands.
- tedivm 8y ago
  If he was a proxy how did he return $50 million?
  - GBiT 8y ago
    It's not clear how he returned. We don't know if the accounts of companies were frozen or where the money went, etc... Or did you believe he returned it in Cash? Or maybe transferred from bank accounts where no one knew? It's not how the financial system works. Here in LT we had some few series about this man and some possible things how it went. This case wasn't public, but every news site had about 15-20 stories about it in two years time.
    - tedivm 8y ago
      You're missing the point of my question- if he was just a proxy he wouldn't be in control of the assets, so they'd have to go after the person he was proxying for to get the funds. The fact that he was able to return them shows that he was more than a proxy.
      - coldtea 8y ago
        Or you know, he had $50M of his own that he "returned" (he was supposedly a businessman), while still being just a proxy to the other that actually stole the real stolen money.
ada1981 8y ago
Kinda worked for the DNC.
coldtea 8y ago
Would you, for one, please guilty to all counts and get 10 years if you were innocent, if the alternative was to e.g. risk being found guilty and get a prosecutorial suggested 30 years?
- UncleEntity 8y ago
  Totally the wrong person to ask since I think it's appalling how prosecutors use that tactic to get innocent people in prison, if you don't take their deal they "throw the book at you" so your average (innocent) person has no chance unless they have a shitton of money to throw at their defense. Certainly wouldn't turn over $50 million if I were innocent.

ChuckMcM 8y ago

Pure speculation here based on your comment: What you describe is called "being a cutout", that is a person who is a proxy for the "real" person who committed the crime. If what you say is accurate, that there was a more sophisticated person who did the crime, there is motivation on his part to plead guilty and stop any further investigation with the assurance that the other party will take care of his family while he serves his time. (At least that is how it has worked in the US with organized crime from time to time). If you step back from the deed itself and look at the bigger picture, if they guy has never been charged before he probably gets a fairly light sentence (not Manafort light, but probably not 30 years), he comes out of it with his family taken care of, the real crook has $73M somewhere safe, and this guy probably doesn't have to work any more if he doesn't want to.

bradleyjg 8y ago

> USA asked for the extradition of this person, and my country gave him up, but he never was in USA. International law, in the form of the passive nationality principle, recognizes criminal jurisdiction in the country of which the victims are nationals regardless of whether the criminal has ever set foot there.

londons_explore 8y ago
Sort of odd to choose the victims location rather than the criminals location...
- bradleyjg 8y ago
  I don't see what's odd about that. Suppose someone in New Jersey mailed a bomb to someone in NY, killing the victim when he opened the package. Jurisdiction over the murder would lie in NJ and NY. It wouldn't be any surprise if the prosecutors in NY (whether federal or local) were more gung ho about bring charges than those in NJ, after all it was one of their own that was killed.