Dinh Hacking Case - URMNHL Approved JACOBS Assistant United...

Info icon This preview shows pages 1–11. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
Image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 4
Image of page 5

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 6
Image of page 7

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 8
Image of page 9

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 10
Image of page 11
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: URMNHL Approved: JACOBS Assistant United States Attorney Before: HONORABLE RONALD L. ELLIS United States Magistrate Judge _ - _ _ — — — ... _ _ _ _ — — — x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : AMENDED COMPLAINT - V. — : Violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1030(a)(5)(A) and (c)(4)(C) VAN T. DINH, COUNTY OF OFFENSE: Defendant. : NEW YORK SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, 85.: FRANK MANZI, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) and charges as follows: COUNT ONE1 From on or about December 30, 2008, up to and including in or about February 2009, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, VAN T. DINH, the defendant, unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly, after having been convicted of an offense under Title 18, United States Code, Section 1030, to wit, a conviction on or about May S, 2004 in the United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, for unauthorized use of a computer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(4), a class D felony, did causé" the transmission of a program, information, code, and command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally did cause damage, without authorization, to protected computers, which are used in 1 On March 13, 2009, a Complaint in United States v. Van T. Dinh, 09 Mag. 663, attached as Exhibit A, was sworn to by Special Agent Frank Manzi before Magistrate Judge Frank Maas in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York. The instant Complaint contains the same factual allegations as Exhibit A. The difference between the instant Complaint and Exhibit A is that Exhibit A charges a violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ lO30(a)(5)(A)(i) and (B)(i), pursuant to a previous version of Section 1030, whereas the instant Complaint charges a violation.of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1030(a)(5)(A) and (c)(4)(C), pursuant to the current version of Section 1030, effective September 26, 2008. :3 .v: W's-ant" awn: .;.-:.-v‘ .vrr-mruuwu 'm‘ interstate and foreign commerce, to wit, DINH, without the knowledge or authorization of a foreign exchange brokerage company (“Company—1”) caused the unauthorized transmission of a program, information, code, and command to Company-1’s computer network that caused foreign currency transactions to take place in accounts belonging to other customers of Company—l, and that caused money to which DINH was not entitled to be credited to DINH's account with Company—l. (Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1030(a)(5)(A) & (c)(4)(C)). The bases for my knowledge and for the foregoing charges are, in part, as follows: 1. I am a Special Agent with the FBI, and I have been involved personally in the investigation of this matter. This affidavit is based upon my own observations, conversations with other law enforcement agents and others, and my examination of reports and records prepared by others. Because this affidavit is being submitted for the limited purpose of establishing probable cause, it does not include all the facts that I have learned during the course of my investigation. Where the contents of documents and the actions, statements, and conversations of others are reported herein, they are reported in substance and in part, except where otherwise indicated. 2. Based on my training and experience, I am aware of the following: a. The Internet Protocol (“IP”) is the primary method by which data is sent from computer to computer over the Internet. Specifically, at any given moment, each computer connected to the Internet has at least one IP address associated with it. IP addresses are normally in the form of 4 numbers between 1 and 256 separated by periods. Further, at any given moment, an IP address uniquely distinguishes the computer assigned a particular IP address from all other computers connected to the Internet, which are assigned different IP addresses. 3. I have spoken with several employees of Company—l, the principal place of business of which is located in Manhattan, and more specifically with an officer of Company-1 (the Company— 1 Officer”), who told me the following: a. At all times relevant to this complaint, Company—1 operates an online foreign exchange brokerage offering online services to customers. ,... ~. .g- ~:z!£r.~r:‘n.:" -.— ,._._..._,_."_,..‘_,‘,. a". b. At all times relevant to this complaint, Company—l operates its business, and provides many of its services to customers, by and through a network of computers located at Company-1’s offices in Manhattan and elsewhere. Company—1's computer network can be accessed from outside the company, via the Internet, by Company-1 customers using usernames and passwords assigned to them by Company—1 after the customers apply for a customer account with Company-l. Company—1's computer network can also be accessed by Company—l employees using assigned usernames and passwords. Certain usernames and passwords assigned to Company—l employees have administrative access (an “Administrator username and password"), which permits the users of those usernames and passwords, inter alia, to access Company—1 customer accounts. 4. I have learned from conversations with the Company—l Officer that VAN T. DINH, the defendant, submitted a signed contract to Company-1 in order to establish a customer account with Company—1 on or about December 30, 2008, and Company-1 assigned him a username and password. At no time did Company-1 assign DINH an Administrator username and password. In connection with his account application, DINH submitted to Company—l a Pennsylvania Driver's License, with a photograph, showing his address in Phoenixville, PA (the “PA Address") 5. I have obtained records from Verizon relating to three IP addresses, herein referred to as IP Address—1, IP Address—2, and IP Address—3. The subscriber to whom IP Address— 1, IP Address—2, and IP Address-3 were issued was “Tri V. Dinh,” at the PA Address. 6. I have reviewed law enforcement records. Based on that review, I have learned the following: a. VAN T. DINH, the defendant, was convicted on or about May 5, 2004 in the United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, for unauthorized use of a computer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(4) (the “Massachusetts Judgment"). b. The Massachusetts Judgment lists the PA Address as the residence address for DINH. 7. I have spoken with a law enforcement agent who was involved in the investigation that led to the Massachusetts Judgement. I showed the agent the photograph on the PA Driver’s License that VAN T. DINH, the defendant, submitted to Company-l in connection with his application for a customer account with Company—1 on or about December 30, 2008. The agent confirmed . —__ r.._._..__. ‘ m 'av- "As-”.97 _.._, that the individual pictured on the PA driver’s license appears to be the same individual who was convicted in the Massachusetts Judgement. 8. Based on conversations I have had with another law enforcement agent, I have learned the following: a. In or about April 2008, VAN T. DINH provided the PA Address as his residence address to his Probation Officer in connection with his term of supervised release relating to the Massachusetts Judgment. ' b. On or about September 18, 2008, DINH provided the PA Address as his residence address to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent. 9. I have reviewed system logs provided by Company—l. Based on that review, I have learned the following: a. On or about January 14, 2009, the Company—1 network was logged into from IP Address-1, at the PA Address, and an account belonging to another Company-1 customer (“Customer-1") was accessed using an Administrator username and password. During this unauthorized access, foreign currency transactions were executed in Customer—1's account. b. On or about January 22, 2009, the Company—1 network was logged into from IP Address~2, at the PA address, and an account belonging to another Company-1 customer (“CUstomer—Z”) was accessed using an Administrator username and password. During this unauthorized access, foreign currency transactions were executed in Customer—2's account. c. On or about January 23, 2009, the Company—l network was logged into from IP Address-3, at the PA address, and an account belonging to Customer—2 was accessed using an Administrator username and password. During this unauthorized access, foreign currency transactions were executed in Customer- 2's account. 10. I have reviewed data from records provided by Company—1. Based on that review, I have learned the following: a. On or about January 12, 2009, the account information in the account belonging to VAN T. DINH, the defendant, was altered to reflect a non—existent deposit in the amount of $55,000. b. On or about January 14, 2009, the account . «.1 uyo—fimi'r' information in the account belonging to DINH, was altered to reflect a second non—existent deposit in the amount of $55,000. c. On or about January 27, 2009, the account information in the account belonging to Customer—2 was altered to reflect a non—existent deposit in the amount of $140,326.75. 11. According to the Company—l Officer, other Company— 1 employees communicated with Customer—2 by email and telephone in or about February 2009. Customer-2 confirmed by email and telephone that he had not accessed his account in January 2009. 12. According to the Company—l Officer, the damages to Company-1's business as a direct result of the activity of VAN T. DINH, the defendant, including time, effort and out—of—pocket expenses incurred in the restoration of the system manipulation that had occurred, exceeded $5,000. WHEREFORE, deponent prays that VAN T. DINH, the defendant, be arrested and imprisoned, or bailed, as the case may be. F K MANZI SPECIAL AGE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Sw rn to before me this 511% ay of March, 2009 M HONORABLE RONALD L. ELLIS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK EXHIBIT A Approved: B'TAN JACOBS Assis “nt United States Attorney Before: HONORABLE FRANK MAAS United States Magistrate Judge Southern District of New York — — _ _ — - - - _ — - _ _ _ .. X UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : gEAL§Q_ggmgLA;EI — v. - : Violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1030(a)(5)(A)(i) and (B)(i) VAN T. DINH, COUNTY OF OFFENSE: Defendant. : NEW YORK - _ _. — - - — — a— - - — — — - x SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, 58.: FRANK MANZI, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) and charges as follows: COUNT ONE From on or about December 30, 2008, up to and including in or about February 2009, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, VAN T. DINH, the defendant, unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly, did cause the transmission of a program, information, code, and command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally did cause damage, without authorization, to protected computers, which are used in interstate and foreign commerce, causing loss to one or more persons during a one—year period aggregating at least $5,000 in value, to wit, DINH, without the knowledge or authorization of a foreign exchange brokerage company (“Company-1") caused the unauthorized transmission of a program, information, code, and command to Company—1's computer network that caused foreign currency transactions to take place in accounts belonging to other customers of Company-1, and that caused money to which DINH was not entitled to be credited to DINH’s account with Company-1. (Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1030(a)(5)(A)(i) & (B)(i)J The bases for my knowledge and for the foregoing charges are, in part, as follows: 1. I am a Special Agent with the FBI, and I have been involved personally in the investigation of this matter. This affidavit is based upon my own observations, conversations with other law enforcement agents and others, and my examination of reports and records prepared by others. Because this affidavit is being submitted for the limited purpose of establishing probable cause, it does not include all the facts that I have learned during the course of my investigation. Where the contents of documents and the actions, statements, and conversations of others are reported herein, they are reported in substance and in part, except where otherwise indicated. 2. Based on my training and experience, I am aware of the following: a. The Internet Protocol (“IP”) is the primary method by which data is sent from computer to computer over the Internet. Specifically, at any given moment, each computer connected to the Internet has at least one IP address associated with it. IP addresses are normally in the form of 4 numbers between 1 and 256 separated by periods. Further, at any given moment, an IP address uniquely distinguishes the computer assigned a particular IP address from all other computers connected to the Internet, which are assigned different IP addresses. 3. I have spoken with several employees of Company-1 the principal place of business of which is located in Manhattan, and more specifically with an officer of Company- 1 (the “Company- 1 Officer”), who told me the following: a. At all times relevant to this complaint, Company— 1 operates an online foreign exchange brokerage offering online services to customers. b. At all times relevant to this complaint, Company— 1 operates its business, and provides many of its services to customers, by and through a network of computers located at Company-1' s offices in Manhattan and elsewhere Company-1' s computer network can be accessed from outside the company, via the Internet, by Company-1 customers using usernames and passwords assigned to them by Company— 1 after the customers apply for a customer account with Company— 1. Company- 1’s computer netwOrk can also be accessed by Company- 1 employees using assigned usernames and passwords. Certain usernames and 2 mwn-mm:m passwords assigned to Company-1 employees have administrative access (an “Administrator username and password”), which permits the users of those usernames and passwords, inter alia, to access Company—l customer accounts. 4. I have learned from conversations with the Company-1 Officer that VAN T. DINH, the defendant, submitted a signed contract to Company-l in order to establish a customer account with Company—l on or about December 30, 2008, and Company—l assigned him a username and password. At no time did Company-1 assign DINH an Administrator username and password. In connection with his account application, DINH submitted to Company-1 a Pennsylvania Driver's License, with a photograph, showing his address in Phoenixville, PA (the “PA Address") 5. I have obtained records from Verizon relating to three IP addresses, herein referred to as IP Address-1, IP Address-2, and IP Address-3. The subscriber to whom IP Address- 1, IP Address-2, and IP Address-3 were issued was “Tri V. Dinh,” at the PA Address. 6. I have reviewed law enforcement records. Based on that review, I have learned the following: a. VAN T. DINH, the defendant, was convicted on or about May S, 2004 in the United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, for unauthorized use of a computer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(4) (the “Massachusetts Judgment”). b. The Massachusetts Judgment lists the PA Address as the residence address for DINH. 7. I have spoken with a law enforcement agent who was involved in the investigation that led to the Massachusetts Judgement. I showed the agent the photograph on the PA Driver's License that VAN T. DINH, the defendant, submitted to Company-1 in connection with his application for a customer account with Company-1 on or about December 30, 2008. The agent confirmed that the individual pictured on the PA driver's license appears to be the same individual who was convicted in the Massachusetts Judgement. ~ ' ' 8. Based on conversations I have had with another law enforcement agent, I have learned the following:. ’ a. In or about April 2008, VAN T. DINH provided the PA Address as his residence address to his Probation Officer 3 ”(Mm-«a lube—1‘ in connection with his term of supervised release relating to the Massachusetts Judgment. b. On or about September 18, 2008, DINH provided the PA Address as his residence address to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent. 9. I have reviewed system logs provided by Company-1. Based on that review, I have learned the following: . a. On or about January 14, 2009, the Company~1 network was logged into from IP Address—l, at the PA Address, and an account belonging to another Company-1 customer (“Customer-l”) was accessed using an Administrator username and password. During this unauthorized access, foreign currency transactions were executed in Customer-1's account. b. On or about January 22, 2009, the Company-1 network was logged into from IP Address-2, at the PA address, and an account belonging to another Company-1 customer (“Customer—2") was accessed using an Administrator username and password. During this unauthorized access, foreign currency transactions were executed in Customer-2's account. c. On or about January 23, 2009, the Company-l network was logged into from IP Address-3, at the PA address, and an account belonging to Customer-2 was accessed using an Administrator username and password. During this unauthorized access, foreign currency transactions were executed in Customer- 2‘s account. 10. I have reviewed data from records provided by Company-1. Based on that review, I have learned the following: a. On or about January 12, 2009, the account information in the account belonging to VAN T. DINH, the defendant, was altered to reflect a non~existent deposit in the amount of $55,000. b. On or about January 14, 2009, the account information in the account belonging to DINH, was altered to reflect a second non-existent deposit in the amount of $55,000. c. On or about January 27, 2009, the account information in the account belonging to Customer-2 was altered to reflect a non-existent deposit in the amount of $140,326.75. 11. According to the Company-1 Officer, other Company- 4 1 employees communicated with Customer-2 by email and telephone in or about February 2009. Customer-2 confirmed by email and telephone that he had not accessed his account in January 2009. 12. According to the Company-1 Officer, the damages to Company-1's business as a direct result of the activity of VAN T. DINH, the defendant, including time, effort and out-of-pocket expenses incurred in the restoration of the system manipulation that had occurred, exceeded $5,000. WHEREFORE, deponent prays that VAN T. DINH, the defendant, be arrested and imprisoned, or hailed, as the case may be. K MANZI SPECIAL AGENT FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Sworn to before me this MAR 1 3 m . STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SO ERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern