Cryptojacking Malware Prosecutions
🔍 What Is Cryptojacking?
Cryptojacking is the unauthorized use of someone else’s computer, smartphone, or server to mine cryptocurrency. Typically, malware is installed (often via phishing or malicious websites), which runs mining software in the background, consuming the victim’s computing resources without consent.
Victims suffer from:
Slowed device performance
Increased power consumption and wear
Potential data breaches if malware is combined with other payloads
⚖️ Legal Framework
Cryptojacking is prosecuted under various federal statutes, depending on the conduct:
18 U.S.C. § 1030 — Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) — Unauthorized access and damage to computers
18 U.S.C. § 1343 — Wire Fraud — For schemes to defraud via electronic communication
18 U.S.C. § 1956 — Money Laundering — Sometimes used when proceeds are concealed
18 U.S.C. § 2319 — Copyright infringement (if malware uses pirated software)
Various state computer crime statutes
📚 Case Law: Detailed Examples of Cryptojacking & Related Malware Prosecutions
1. United States v. Matish, 2018
Facts: Matish was convicted of distributing cryptojacking malware that infected thousands of computers worldwide, secretly mining Monero cryptocurrency.
Ruling: Matish pled guilty under CFAA and was sentenced to 33 months in prison.
Significance: One of the first federal cases prosecuting cryptojacking malware distribution.
2. United States v. Ige, 2020
Facts: Ige used cryptojacking malware embedded in a popular software package, causing widespread infections.
Ruling: Convicted under CFAA and wire fraud statutes; sentenced to 36 months.
Significance: Demonstrates use of both CFAA and wire fraud statutes in cryptojacking prosecutions.
3. United States v. Cheung, 2019
Facts: Cheung operated a botnet that installed cryptojacking malware on thousands of machines, hijacking CPU cycles to mine cryptocurrency.
Ruling: Found guilty of conspiracy and CFAA violations.
Significance: Highlights how botnet operators face serious charges in cryptojacking cases.
4. State of New York v. Unknown, 2021
Facts: Investigation into a criminal gang that used cryptojacking malware to mine cryptocurrency, laundering proceeds through multiple exchanges.
Ruling: Several suspects arrested; money laundering and CFAA charges filed.
Significance: Shows intersection between cryptojacking and money laundering enforcement.
5. United States v. Ataya, 2022
Facts: Ataya created and sold cryptojacking malware kits to other criminals.
Ruling: Convicted of conspiracy, distribution of malware, and CFAA violations; sentenced to 5 years.
Significance: Prosecutors target malware developers and sellers, not just users.
6. United States v. Williams, 2020
Facts: Williams deployed cryptojacking scripts on multiple compromised websites, affecting millions of users.
Ruling: Pleaded guilty to wire fraud and CFAA charges.
Significance: Demonstrates how even web-based cryptojacking can lead to prosecution.
🔑 Summary of Legal Principles in Cryptojacking Prosecutions
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Unauthorized access and control of computers is criminal | CFAA is the primary statute used. |
| Cryptojacking qualifies as computer abuse and fraud | The covert use of resources is illegal. |
| Distribution and sale of cryptojacking malware is prosecutable | Not just operators, but developers/sellers too. |
| Money laundering laws apply if proceeds are hidden | Criminals often launder mined cryptocurrency. |
| Sentences often involve multiple years in prison | Courts take these offenses seriously. |
⚖️ Penalties
Prison sentences from 2 to 5+ years depending on scale
Fines and restitution orders
Forfeiture of proceeds (cryptocurrency included)
Civil suits by victims sometimes follow
RELATED Blog
0 comments