Private Investigator Hired Hackers To Obtain User Names Passwords for Emails of People He Was Investigating. Being Sentenced Today For One Count of Federal Conspiracy to Commit Computer Hacking

Anyone tempted to hire an investigator to obtain access to another’s emails or hacks into someone else’s email should know that it is a federal crime. 

In addition, just because you see hacking services “advertised” on the Internet or in email solicitations do not mean that they are legal. Today, June 26, 2015, federal prosecutors are expected to seek a prison sentence of up to six months for a licensed private investigator in New York City, Eric Saldarriaga, 41, who admitted to hacking into emails on behalf of his clients.

Mr. Saldarriaga, age 41, pleaded guilty on March 6 before U.S. District Judge Richard J. Sullivan to one count of conspiracy to commit computer hacking, paid an unidentified overseas firm to secure the login credentials and passwords for the email accounts he wanted access to without permission.

Like many federal cases, the facts occurred years ago. In the plea agreement, Mr. Saldarriaga admitted that over six years ago, beginning in 2009 he found services advertised on the Internet (the “Hacking Services”). He then paid the Hacking Services to provide him with login credentials, including usernames and passwords, for e-mail accounts of numerous individuals he was investigating on behalf of his clients as well as individuals in whom Mr. Saldarriaga was interested for personal reasons. Mr. Saldarriaga then admitted that he unlawfully accessed and reviewed victims’ e-mail communications. In total, Mr. Saldarriaga  admitted that he hired Hacking Services to hack into, and provide unauthorized access to, at least 60 different e-mail accounts. These individuals are the “victims” in this federal case.

Mr. Saldarriaga has been the only one charged with a crime, even though some of those who hired him appear to have been aware of what he was doing. Mr. Saldarriaga's clients are known to have included lawyers, wealthy people and even other private investigators.  Some of the victims of Mr. Saldarriaga's email hacking, like Tony Ortega, a former editor of The Village Voice who has written about Scientology, have been pressing the prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office to reveal the name of the clients.

The sentence was left up to Judge Sullivan and in sentencing memoranda, the defense sought probation while the prosecutors sought six months of prison. The maximum sentence for this charge is 5 years in federal custody but that is not expected since this is Mr. Saldarriaga’s first offense and he only made $5,000 from these hacking assignments. The assigned Assistant U.S. Attorney argued in a pre-sentencing memorandum that Mr. Saldarriaga's invasion of privacy warranted a stronger punishment than the six months of home detention and three years of supervised probation recommended by the court's own probation department. "Unlike defendants in a gun or drug case, who often act without reflection, there is reason to believe that individuals who engage in hacking and other forms of cybercrime can be deterred by a substantial threat of penalties," he wrote.

Judge Sullivan later sentenced Mr. Saldarriaga to three months in prison because the guidelines showed that economic losses by the victims were minimal. However he noted that the guidelines do not cover the drastic invasions of privacy performed and ordered that Mr. Saldarriaga also serve three months of home detention after his release as a deterrent to others. Two victims who addressed the court requested that sentencing be put off until they discover who paid Mr. Saldarriaga to hack their emails. One of the victims suspected it was the Church of Scientology who has hired investigators before to follow him after he wrote news articles critical of the church. Yet Judge Sullivan noted it was not his job to investigate that matter and that he could not force Mr. Saldarriage to reveal who hired him.

The lesson from this case is that while all attorneys and parties in a case would enjoy having an upper hand by knowing the private communications of others, any such temptation must be resisted. As I tell my clients when they ask me to do something that is not legal in order to gain advantage: “who will be representing you while I am in jail?” Litigation and business/family disputes can be incredibly frustrating especially when the other side is not fair or is incredibly unreasonable. However, ethics and following the law are required and everyone should use legal means to obtain information. There are a wide number of ways to obtain information legally and this should be exhausted in these cases.

Posted by Tracy Green, Esq.

Green and Associates, Attorneys at Law

Important 9th Circuit Decision On Procedures For Government To Use In Search Warrants Examining Or Seizing Computers Or Electronic Storage Medium

In Los Angeles, on January 10, 2011, former state employee Gary Eugene Goethe, 48, of Sacramento, was sentenced by United States District Judge Gary A. Feess  to 41 months in federal prison after pleading guilty to four counts of extortion under color of official right and two counts of bribery charges for demanding more than $100,000 in bribes from the owners of two drug rehabilitation clinics.

Mr. Goethe pleaded guilty in May 2010 pursuant to a written plea agreement.  In addition to the prison term he received today, Mr. Goethe was ordered to repay the bribes he received during the FBI’s undercover investigation of his corrupt activities.


Mr. Goethe worked for the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs (ADP) as a Drug Medi-Cal Monitoring Supervisor who traveled to alcohol and drug treatment clinics throughout California to inspect records and documentation related to Medi-Cal billings. ADP, which receives federal funding, is responsible for administering prevention, treatment and recovery services for alcohol abuse, drug abuse and problem gambling. The case was prosecuted in Los Angeles because the clinics at issue were in the Central District of California.

Mr. Goethe was arrested on July 9, 2009 by FBI special agents as he was leaving a meeting where he accepted a $3,500 cash payment that was part of a $10,000 bribe he had negotiated. Mr. Goethe subsequently pled guilty to having solicited and accepted bribes from rehabilitation facility owners in exchange for his promises of approvals and other benefits. In a plea agreement filed in this case, Mr. Goethe admitted that he told a clinic owner that he could help the owner obtain certifications that would allow the owner to expand service offerings to include mental health treatment. Mr. Goethe admitted having promised that, in exchange for cash bribery payments, he could “guarantee” that the owner’s clinics would obtain certification to provide mental health treatment services. Goethe demanded $92,000 in bribery payments from the owner.

In relation to another facility, Mr. Goethe admitted that he revealed to the owner that the clinic was being investigated by the California Department of Justice (CalDOJ), but, in exchange for a cash bribe, he could “help” the clinic owner by providing confidential information about the subjects and progress of the investigation, as well as steering CalDOJ away from the clinic. Mr. Goethe admitted that he demanded $10,000 in bribe payments from the owner of this facility. During sentencing, Judge Feese commented that Mr. Goethe’s conduct was “essentially a shakedown of those...over whom he has authority and the ability to control." 

Posted by Tracy Green, Esq. Please email Ms. Green at tgreen@greenassoc.com or call her at 213-233-2260 to schedule a complimentary 30-minute consultation.  

The firm focuses its practice on the representation of licensed professionals, individuals and businesses in civil, business, administrative and criminal proceedings. They have a specialty in representing licensed health care providers in California and throughout the country. Their website is: http://www.greenassoc.com/

Washington Man Charged With Federal Crimes in San Jose, California For Unauthorized Access Of Private Email Account

A recent case regarding unauthorized access of a Yahoo email account shows how accessing someone's email account can be a federal crime. Think of someone you know in a troubled relationship who finds out their partner's password and authorizes their email without authorization. Even if not done for financial gain, it is a crime. In professional and personal relationships, email is a tempting means of accessing private information about someone.

On July 15, 2009, a federal grand jury in San Jose, California indicted Gregory Alexander, of Everett, Washington, for unauthorized access of the private email account of a member of a not-for-profit organization’s board of directors. Mr. Alexander was charged with computer fraud and aggravated identity theft. He is currently out of custody on a $100,000 personal recognizance bond. The case is being prosecuted in San Jose since that is where Yahoo is located.

According to the indictment, Mr. Alexander used a username and password belonging to Randall Hough, a member of the United States Chess Federation’s (UCSF) Board of Directors, to access Hough’s private email account on 34 separate occasions spanning from November 2007 to June 2008. Mr. Alexander was the webmaster for a chess site known as chessdiscussion.com. Additionally, the indictment notes that Mr. Alexander obtained information from Hough’s account on an unspecified number of those occasions.

The maximum statutory penalty for each count of computer fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2) is 10 years and a fine of $250,000. The maximum statutory penalty for the count of aggravated identity theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1) is two years. However, any sentence following conviction would be imposed by the court after consideration of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and the federal statute governing the imposition of a sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3553. Please note, an indictment contains only allegations against an individual and, as with all defendants, Mr. Alexander must be presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

For a copy of the indictment, go to:
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/can/press/press_documents/AlexanderIndictment.pdf

Posted by Tracy Green. Any questions or comments should be directed to: tgreen@greenassoc.com or 213-233-2260. The firm website is: http://www.greenassoc.com/