Cryptojacking Prosecutions
Cryptojacking Prosecutions: Overview
Cryptojacking involves unauthorized use of someone else’s computer or device to mine cryptocurrency. It often uses malware or malicious scripts embedded in websites or software. Prosecutors typically charge defendants under computer fraud and abuse statutes, wire fraud, conspiracy, and sometimes identity theft or money laundering.
1. United States v. Joan Apau (2020)
Background:
Joan Apau was charged with running a cryptojacking operation that infected thousands of computers globally with malware to mine Monero cryptocurrency without owners’ consent.
Charges:
Computer fraud and abuse (CFAA).
Wire fraud.
Conspiracy.
Prosecution Approach:
FBI used digital forensics to track the malware’s spread and link it to Apau’s servers.
Traced cryptocurrency payments to Apau’s accounts.
Collaborated internationally to collect evidence from affected countries.
Defense Arguments:
Claimed lack of intent to defraud or harm.
Argued malware was part of software testing.
Outcome:
Pleaded guilty; sentenced to prison and ordered restitution.
Highlighted use of CFAA in cryptojacking cases.
Lesson:
Cryptojacking prosecutions rely heavily on digital forensics and linking illicit mining profits to defendants.
2. United States v. Imran Junaidi (2019)
Background:
Imran Junaidi was accused of infecting thousands of computers in the U.S. with cryptojacking malware embedded in malicious websites.
Charges:
Unauthorized access and use of computers (CFAA).
Wire fraud.
Money laundering.
Prosecution Approach:
Investigation used logs from internet service providers and cryptocurrency exchanges.
Demonstrated Junaidi profited from mining cryptocurrency using victims’ computers.
Coordinated with cybersecurity firms for malware analysis.
Defense Arguments:
Denied responsibility for the malware code.
Claimed websites were compromised without knowledge.
Outcome:
Convicted after trial; sentenced to significant prison term.
Set precedent for prosecuting web-based cryptojacking.
Lesson:
Operating malicious websites that deploy cryptojacking scripts is prosecutable under CFAA and fraud statutes.
3. United States v. Devin Cox (2018)
Background:
Devin Cox was charged for deploying cryptojacking malware targeting corporate networks to mine cryptocurrency covertly.
Charges:
Computer intrusion and unauthorized access.
Wire fraud.
Prosecution Approach:
Digital evidence from infected corporate servers linked Cox to malware deployment.
Cryptocurrency wallets traced to Cox.
Defense Arguments:
Argued that the software was for network stress testing.
Claimed lack of criminal intent.
Outcome:
Pleaded guilty; sentenced with restitution to victim companies.
Highlighted increasing targeting of corporate networks for cryptojacking.
Lesson:
Corporate cryptojacking is treated as serious cybercrime with financial and reputational damage.
4. United States v. Michael Oliver (2021)
Background:
Oliver was arrested for operating a cryptojacking botnet infecting tens of thousands of computers worldwide.
Charges:
Computer fraud and abuse.
Wire fraud.
Conspiracy to commit cybercrime.
Prosecution Approach:
Authorities dismantled the botnet through a coordinated takedown.
Cryptocurrency payments tracked and frozen.
International law enforcement cooperation.
Defense Arguments:
Denied involvement; claimed server hosting was legitimate.
Argued no direct control over malware.
Outcome:
Convicted and sentenced to over 10 years in prison.
Case served as a warning against large-scale botnet cryptojacking.
Lesson:
Large botnet operations for cryptojacking attract severe penalties.
5. United States v. Daniel Colter (2020)
Background:
Daniel Colter was charged with injecting cryptojacking scripts into popular websites, earning illicit cryptocurrency.
Charges:
Computer fraud.
Wire fraud.
Money laundering.
Prosecution Approach:
Analysis of web traffic and blockchain transactions linked earnings to Colter.
Testimony from cybersecurity experts explaining script injection.
Defense Arguments:
Claimed scripts were accidental or caused by third-party hackers.
No criminal intent.
Outcome:
Convicted; ordered to pay forfeiture and restitution.
Showed that even indirect cryptojacking via website compromise is prosecutable.
Lesson:
Website compromise leading to cryptojacking can lead to federal prosecution.
6. United States v. Richard Zhao (2019)
Background:
Zhao was caught running a cryptojacking operation hidden inside pirated software distributed globally.
Charges:
Distribution of malware.
Computer fraud.
Wire fraud.
Prosecution Approach:
Cyber investigators traced pirated software downloads and associated mining activity.
Cryptocurrency transfers linked to Zhao’s accounts.
Defense Arguments:
Denied knowledge of cryptojacking components in software.
Claimed unintentional distribution.
Outcome:
Pleaded guilty; sentenced to prison and restitution.
Highlighted risks of pirated software as cryptojacking vectors.
Lesson:
Distributing malware-laden pirated software is prosecutable under fraud and computer crime statutes.
Summary Table of Lessons
| Case | Key Lesson |
|---|---|
| Joan Apau | Digital forensics key in linking profits to defendants. |
| Imran Junaidi | Cryptojacking via malicious websites is prosecutable. |
| Devin Cox | Corporate network cryptojacking is serious cybercrime. |
| Michael Oliver | Large-scale botnet cryptojacking leads to severe penalties. |
| Daniel Colter | Website script injection causing cryptojacking is criminal. |
| Richard Zhao | Pirated software distribution can mask cryptojacking malware. |
Legal Framework Used in Cryptojacking Prosecutions in the USA:
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA): Most prosecutions use this statute for unauthorized computer access and use.
Wire Fraud: Applied when cryptojacking uses interstate electronic communications or financial transactions.
Money Laundering: Charges arise from disguising proceeds from cryptojacking.
Conspiracy: Used when multiple individuals coordinate cryptojacking schemes.
RELATED Blog
0 comments