It's an oddly uninformative document. It says that they believe he created the Kronos malware but gives absolutely no clue why they think that. All the other overt acts listed appear to have been carried out by his unnamed alleged co-conspirator alone. What makes this particularly bizarre is that he was begging on Twitter for a sample of the malware in question at around the same time: https://twitter.com/MalwareTechBlog/status/48837379416825446...
Indictments are lists of charges; expecting them to be informative for questions other than “what is the defendant being charged with” is irrational. (And “what is the evidence supporting the charges” is a separate question.)
> All the other overt acts listed appear to have been carried out by his unnamed alleged co-conspirator alone.
A conspiracy charge only requires any of the conspirators to have taken an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This is much less informative than other indictments have been. The NanoCore indictment, for instance, went into much more detail than this one did, and for an uncannily similar crime. Other "controversial" indictments, such as the one for Kim Schmitz, have practically been small books about the alleged criminal conspiracies.
I'm assuming at some point there will be a superseding indictment that goes into more detail.
I'm asking since I do not know the answer. Is the boilerplate nature of the language in this indictment typical?
The indictment seems to essentially recite the statutes named, even to the point of preserving the original text in the face of grammatical error.
I am particularly curious about instances where it is clear that the statute was violated by one set, in particular, of several alternate conditions.
Is it the role of the indictment to convey the nature of the alleged acts which broke the law, or to convey the nature of the laws that were broken, irrespective of the details of the acts?
The assertion by a grand jury that a person did one thing OR some other thing, especially, comes across as a little peculiar to a naive reader.
Not sure how this works in the US, but "fair trial" means (at least in German law) that the defendant has full access to all evidence brought against him before it is brought to court, right?
Marketing and selling can be considered more damning than the other thing.
For example, many times you will not be prosecuted for pirating content/counterfeiting merchandise/using drugs for your own personal interest, but if you try to advertise/sell such things you're much more likely to become a target.
It's a trojan whose purpose is to be installed on large numbers of compromised end-user machines, and to inject fake web pages into browsers to collect credentials and credit card numbers. The DOJ prosecutes people who do that; see, for instance, the recent NanoCore case.
This phrase piques my FBI informant radar, and for anyone paying attention often they are worse than the people they rat out, but now get magically protected as useful assets.
Surely they have something concrete to tie him to this, regardless, I could very easily see this being the making of a new Sabu. I could also very easily see the unnamed be inventing stuff to get out of the hot seat.
They aren't supposed to give their full investigative details; this is just a summary of the allegations they're making against him. We will likely see evidence and details in the coming months.
> but gives absolutely no clue why they think that
Well, first, it's an indictment, not a trial. The evidence was presented to a grand jury which found it sufficient to try before a criminal court. It will be presented again at trial, along with whatever else the DoJ has (or else he'll plead out and we'll never see it).
Second, it sounds kinda damning to me: they apparently have him actually selling this thing. If they can prove that, he's toast.
People said this about the Page deposition as well yesterday. I'm not sure what to say except that every document we can find does not necessarily exist for our edification.
