Information for Victims in Large Cases
|Case Name||Familiar Names and Terms||District or Division||Overview|
|U.S. v. Andrey Turchin||fxmsp||USAO - Washington, Western||
The indictment charges TURCHIN with conspiracy to commit computer hacking, two counts of computer fraud and abuse (hacking), conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and access device fraud.? TURCHIN and his accomplices perpetrated an ambitious hacking enterprise broadly targeting hundreds of victims across six continents.? TURCHIN employed a collection of hacking techniques and malicious software (malware) to gain and maintain access to victim networks.? For instance, he often used specially designed code to scan the Internet for open Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) ports and conduct brute-force attacks to initially compromise victim networks.? Once inside the victim’s system, he moved laterally throughout the network and deployed additional malicious code to locate and steal administrative credentials and establish persistent access.? The conspirators often modified antivirus software settings to allow malware to continue to run undetected.? TURCHIN and his co-conspirators then marketed and sold the network access on various underground forums commonly frequented by hackers and cybercriminals, such as Exploit.in, fuckav.ru, Club2Card, Altenen, Blackhacker, Omerta, Sniff3r, and L33t, among others.? As has been publicly reported, the “fxmsp” group has been linked to numerous high-profile data breaches, ransomware attacks, and other cyber intrusions.
|US v. Mario Castro, et al||Mario Castro, Salvador Castro, Jose Castro, Miguel Castro, Andrea Burrow, Jose Mendez||USAO - Nevada||
The indictment charges Mario Castro, 51, Jose Salud Castro, 70, Salvador Castro, 53, Miguel Castro, 55, Jose Luis Mendez, 45, and Andrea Burrow, 49, with mail fraud and conspiracy to commit mail fraud.? According to the indictment, the defendants ran a fraudulent prize-notification scheme that tricked hundreds of thousands of consumers, many of whom were elderly and vulnerable, into paying a $20 or $30 fee to claim a large cash prize.? None of the victims who submitted fees ever received a large cash prize, the indictment alleges.
|US v. Blue Bell Creameries; US v. Paul Kruse (related)||Civil Division||
Texas-based ice-cream maker Blue Bell Creameries agreed to plead guilty to a criminal information filed in the Western District of Texas resolving charges that Blue Bell shipped listeria-contaminated products in 2015.? Blue Bell agreed to plead guilty to two misdemeanor counts of distributing adulterated ice cream products and pay a criminal fine and forfeiture amount totaling $17.25 million.? Blue Bell also agreed to pay an additional $2.1 million to resolve civil False Claims Act allegations regarding ice cream products manufactured under insanitary conditions and sold to federal military facilities.? Blue Bell’s former president, Paul Kruse, was charged separately in connection with his alleged role in covering up from customers what the company knew about the contaminated ice cream.?
|U.S. v. Florida Cancer Specialists & Research Institute||Florida Cancer Specialists, FCS, Oncology||Antitrust Division||
Florida Cancer Specialists & Research Institute, LLC was charged with participating in a conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition by agreeing to allocate the provision of medical and radiation oncology services. Specifically, FCS and its co-conspirators agreed not to compete to provide chemotherapy and radiation treatments to cancer patients in Southwest Florida.? Beginning as early as 1999 and continuing until at least 2016, FCS entered into an illegal agreement that allocated chemotherapy treatments to FCS and radiation treatments to a competing oncology group.
|US v. Ankur Khemani, et al||Azure Support, Cloudcomm Technologies, IDT Info Solutions, Tech Crew, AGA Tech Experts, Geek Tech Support, Alignteq, M&A Tech, Toler Tech, Tydan Tech, Deltron Support, Peler Technologies, Gradient Info Solutions||USAO - Tennessee, Eastern||
The defendants operated a bogus computer technical support company.? Victims would obtain the toll-free number for the phony service through either (1) a pop-up advertisement that would appear on the victim’s computer, or (2) through an Internet search for technical support services.? Victims’ calls would be routed to a call center in India, where an individual posing as a technical support technician would obtain remote access to their computers and falsely inform the victims that their computers had been targeted by hackers and/or had been infected with malware.? The phony technician would then pretend to perform repairs and/or install unneeded computer programs.? The victim would be billed between $300 and $1,500 for the bogus work performed, and would be instructed to send payment, either by U.S. Postal Service or FedEx, to an address inside the United States.? Upon receipt of the payments, defendants inside the United States would send the money to defendants in India.
|United States vs. Mann||Lance Dominique Mann||USAO - Utah||
Lance Mann has been charged with identity theft for his role in unlawfully obtaining victims’ confidential financial and personal information, including drivers licenses, Social Security cards, and credit card information. Included in the unlawfully obtained information was a list of names, home addresses, and credit card numbers belonging to victims who purchased tickets for tour buses visiting the Grand Canyon. Investigators believe that many of those transactions occurred in Las Vegas, Nevada.
|U.S. v. Sandoz Inc.||Sandoz Inc.; Generic Drugs||Antitrust Division||
Sandoz Inc. was charged with participating in four conspiracies to suppress and eliminate competition by agreeing to allocate customers, rig bids, and fix prices for generic drugs.? The charged conspiracies took place between 2013 and 2015.
|U.S. v. Hector Armando Kellum||Hector Armando Kellum, Generic Drugs||Antitrust Division||
Hector Armando Kellum was charged with participating in a conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition by agreeing to allocate customers and rig bids for, and stabilize, maintain, and fix prices of, generic drugs sold in the United States from at least as early as March 2013 until at least June 2015.
|U.S. v. Ara Aprahamian||Ara Aprahamian, Generic Drugs||Antitrust Division||
Ara Aprahamian was charged with engaging in two conspiracies to suppress and eliminate competition by agreeing to allocate customers and rig bids for, and stabilize, maintain, and fix prices of, generic drugs sold in the United States from at least as early as Spring 2013 and continuing until at least 2015.
|United States v. Javaid Perwaiz, 2:19cr189||USAO - Virginia, Eastern||
?As alleged in the indictment and court documents, from at least January 2010 until November 8, 2019, Perwaiz was a licensed physician, board certified to practice obstetrics and gynecology.? He was a solo practitioner and operated two different offices in Chesapeake, Virginia.? At the time of his arrest, it is estimated he had well over 1,000 active patients. Throughout this time period, Perwaiz submitted tens of thousands of fraudulent claims to various health care benefit programs for unnecessary, uninformed, and/or fraudulent gynecological procedures.? As part of his scheme and to justify his bills, Perwaiz would falsely claim that patients asked for the billed procedures/surgeries, falsify symptoms and complaints supposedly made by the patients, and falsely claim to perform diagnostic procedures, among other conduct.
The public is reminded that a criminal indictment contains only charges and is not evidence of guilt. The defendant is presumed innocent and is entitled to a fair trial at which the government has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.