Cyber Extortion and Threats: Analysis of the United States Case Law
Vol.14,No.1(2020)
This article presents an analysis of the cyber extortion and threats cases brought to the United States courts. The inquiry employed content analysis to identify important elements and attributes and answers research questions concerning essential attributes, legal elements, and how do the courts interprets these offenses. The article extends the understanding of this phenomenon by providing a thorough discussion of the conceptual issues and characteristics and an analysis of the most important litigation aspects, such as intent, true threats, sentencing, and the insanity defense. The article concludes with recommendations for stakeholders, to more effectively address the phenomenon.
Cybercrime; Extortion; Insanity; Intent; Malware; Sentencing; Speech; True Threats
p. 3–28
Ioana Vasiu
Babes-Bolyai University
Prof. Dr., Faculty of Law.
Coordinator of the BBU Faculty of Law’s Cybercrime Research Unit; member of the BBU Scientific Council; member of the Board of Directors of the International Association of Penal Law (2014-2019); and external affiliated member of the Ostrom Workshop Program on Cybersecurity and Internet Governance, Indiana University. Expert with the European Commission and the UNDP Romania; partner and lead researcher on several projects funded by the European Commission, Dutch Council for the Judiciary and other entities; co-Chair of the Management
and Delivery of Justice Group of the European Group of Public Administration; and keynote speaker or
moderator at numerous professional events organized by prestigious organizations, such as OECD or UNDP/RCPAR. Her research focuses on cybercrime nature, prevention, and litigation.
Lucian Vasiu
PhD, MBA, computer scientist, expert in cybercrime prevention and information systems security.
[1] Barney, D. (2016) Elonis v. United States: Why the Supreme Court Punted on Free Speech. Pepperdine Law Review, 2016.
[2] Berman, M.N. (1998) The Evidentiary Theory of Blackmail: Taking Motives Seriously. University of Chicago Law Review, 65. https://doi.org/10.2307/1600300
[3] Brusco, M.A. (2016) Read This Note or Else!: Conviction Under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) for Recklessly Making a Threat. Fordham Law Review, 84.
[4] Bumb, M. L. (2017) Domestic Violence Law, Abusers’ Intent, and Social Media: How Transaction-Bound Statutes Are the True Threats to Prosecuting Perpetrators of Gender-Based Violence. Brooklyn Law Review, 82 (2).
[5] Coenen, D.T. (2017) Freedom of Speech and the Criminal Law. Boston University Law Review, 97.
[6] Collins, E. (2018) Insane: James Holmes, Clark v. Arizona, and America’s Insanity Defense. Journal of Law and Health, 31.
[7] Commonwealth v. Knox. (2018) 190 A.3d 1146 (Pa.), 21 August.
[8] Crump, D. (2010) What Does Intent Mean? Hofstra Law Review, 38.
[9] Cybercrime Convention Committee (T-CY). (2018) Mapping Study on Cyberviolence. [online] Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
[10] Elonis v. United States. (2015) 135 S. Ct. 2001, 575 U.S., 192 L. Ed. 2D 1, 1 June.
[11] European Institute for Gender Equality. (2017) Cyber violence against women and girls.
[12] European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol). (2017) Internet Organised Crime Threat Assessment. The Hague: Europol.
[13] Florida Statutes 836.05 Threats; extortion.
[14] Fontana v. United States. (2020) No. 14-20141 (E.D. Mich.), 17 April.
[15] Geha, G. (2016) Think Twice Before Posting Online: Criminalizing Threats Under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) After Elonis. John Marshall Law Review, 50.
[16] Green, S.P. (2005) Theft by Coercion: Extortion, Blackmail, and Hard Bargaining. Washburn Law Journal, 44.
[17] Han, D.S. (2014) The Mechanics of First Amendment Audience Analysis. William and Mary Law Review, 55.
[18] Harawa, D.S. (2014) Social Media Thoughtcrimes. Pace Law Review, 35.
[19] In the Matter of Search of a Residence in Oakland. (2019) Case No. 4-19-70053 (N.D. Cal.), 10 January.
[20] Irizarry v. United States. (2008) 553 U.S. 708, 128 S. Ct. 2198, 171 L. Ed. 2D 28, 12 June.
[21] Kachulis, L. (2017) Insane in the Mens Rea: Why Insanity Defense Reform is Long Overdue. Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal, 26.
[22] Kahler v. Kansas. (2020) No. 18-6135 (U.S.), 23 March.
[23] McCann, A.E. (2006) Are Courts Taking Internet Threats Seriously Enough? An Analysis of True Threats Transmitted Over the Internet, as Interpreted in United States v. Carmichael. Pace Law Review, 26.
[24] Peterson, J. and Densley, J. (2017) Cyber Violence: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go From Here?. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.01.012
[25] Pierce, M. (2015) Prosecuting Online Threats After Elonis. Northwestern University Law Review, 110.
[26] Quek, J.X. (2016) Elonis v. United States: The Next Twelve Years. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 31.
[27] RAV v. St. Paul. (1992) 505 U.S. 377, 388, 22 June. https://doi.org/10.1177/002204269202200215
[28] Roark, M.M. (2015) Elonis v. United States: The Doctrine of True Threats: Protecting Our Ever-Shrinking First Amendment Rights in the New Era of Communication. Pittsburgh Journal of Technology Law & Policy, 15. https://doi.org/10.5195/TLP.2015.162
[29] Romney, J. (2012) Eliminating the Subjective Intent Requirement for True Threats in United States v. Bagdasarian. Brigham Young University Law Review, 2012.
[30] Scheidler v. National Organization for Women. (2003) 537 U.S. 393.
[31] Shavell, S. (1993) An Economic Analysis of Threats and Their Illegality: Blackmail, Extortion, and Robbery. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 141. https://doi.org/10.2307/3312577
[32] Spitzberg, B.H. and Gawron, J.M. (2016) Toward Online Linguistic Surveillance of Threatening Messages. Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law, 11. https://doi.org/10.15394/jdfsl.2016.1418
[33] Strasser, M. (2011) Advocacy, True Threats, and the First Amendment. Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, 38.
[34] The Free Dictionary. Insanity.
[35] United States v. Abrahams. (2013) No. 8:13-mj-00422 (C.D. Cal.), 17 September.
[36] United States v. Alkhabaz. (1997) 104 F.3d 1492 (6th Cir.), 29 January.
[37] United States v. Arega. (2018) No. 1: 17-cr-00225-TSC (D.C.), 17 January.
[38] United States v. Avenatti. (2020) No.(S1) 19 Cr. 373 (PGG) (S.D.N.Y.), 14 January.
[39] United States v. Bagdasarian. (2011) 652 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir.), 19 July
[40] United States v. Bishop. (2018) Case 118MJ24LDA (D.R.I.), 23 January.
[41] United States v. Cain. (2018) No. 1: 16-cr-00103-JAW (D. Me.), 1 June.
[42] United States v. Carrillo. (2020) No. 1: 19-cr-01991 KWR (D.N.M.), 8 April.
[43] United States v. Champ, United States v. Wood. (2006) 459 F. Supp. 2d 451 (E.D. Va.), 29 September.
[44] United States v. Chansler. (2010) No. 3:10-cr-00100 (M. D. Fla.), 15 April.
[45] United States v. Christian. (2014) 749 F.3d 806-8 (9th Cir.), 17 April.
[46] United States v. Christy. (2019) No. 3: 18-CR-223 (M.D. Pa.), 14 February.
[47] United States v. Coss. (2012) 677 F.3d 278 (6th Cir.), 16 April.
[48] United States v. Cox. (1992) 957 F.2d 264, 266 (6th Cir.), 27 February.
[49] United States v. Cruz. (2017) No. 15-3139 (3d Cir.), 8 November.
[50] United States v. Dillard. (2011) 835 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (D. Kan.), 21 December.
[51] United States v. Doggart. (2020) 947 F.3d 879 (6th Cir.), 15 January.
[52] United States v. Dutcher. (2017) 851 F.3d 757 (7th Cir.), 22 March.
[53] United States v. Fontana. (2017) No. 16-2208 (6th Cir.), 15 August.
[54] United States v. Fowler. (2010) Case No. 8:10-cr-65-T-24 AEP (M.D. Fla.), 25 October.
[55] United States v. Gillenwater. (2014) 749 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir.), 11 April.
[56] United States v. Gomez. (2020) No. 18-12089 (11th Cir.), 14 February.
[57] United States v. Gossett. (2019) No. 1: 19-cr-00081 WJ (D.N.M.), 7 May.
[58] United States v. Haileselassie. (2019) No. 18-1343 (8th Cir.), 10 June.
[59] United States v. Heineman. (2014) 767 F.3d 970, 972 (10th Cir.), 15 September.
[60] United States v. Humphries. (2013) No. 12 Cr. 347 (RWS) (S.D.N.Y.), 28 October.
[61] United States v. Ivanov. (2001) 175 F. Supp. 2d 367 (D. Conn.), 6 December.
[62] United States v. Ivers. (2018) No. 3: 16-cr-00347-AA (D. Or.), 21 February.
[63] United States v. Jongewaard. (2009) 567 F.3d 336, 340 (8th Cir.), 3 June.
[64] United States v. Jordan. (2017) No. 16-CR-93-FPG-HKS-1 (W.D.N.Y.), 24 October.
[65] United States v. Kadar. (2017) Case No. 6:17-mj-1361 (M.D. Fla.), 4 April.
[66] United States v. Killen. (2018) No. 15-15001 (11th Cir.), 29 March.
[67] United States v. Kirsch. (2015) 151 F. Supp. 3d 311, 313 (W.D.N.Y.), 16 December.
[68] United States v. Leach. (2017) Case No. 2:17mj-44-1 (D. Vt.), 21 April.
[69] United States v. Lisnyak. (2015) Case No. 15-04179MJ-PCTDMF (D. Ariz.), 16 July.
[70] United States v. Long. (2009) No. 07-31131 (5th Cir.), 5 March.
[71] United States v. McCrudden. (2015) No. CR-11-061 (DRH) (E.D.N.Y.), 16 March.
[72] United States v. Michael. (2012) No. 2: 12-cr-1-WTL-CMM (S.D. Ind.), 9 October.
[73] United States v. Parr. (2008) 545 F.3d 491 (7th Cir.), 18 September.
[74] United States v. Petrovic. (2012) 701 F.3d 849 (8th Cir.), 13 December.
[75] United States v. Schweitzer. (2017) No. 4: 17CR3094 (D. Neb.), 28 November.
[76] United States v. Smith. (2017) 878 F.3d 498 (5th Cir.), 28 December.
[77] United States v. Springer. (2018) No. 17-15584, Non-Argument Calendar (11th Cir.), 26 October.
[78] United States v. Sullivan. (2016) No. 3: 13-cr-00064-HZ (D. Or.), 6 January.
[79] United States v. Sunmola. (2018) 887 F.3d 830 (7th Cir.), 16 April.
[80] United States v. Swarbrick. (2018) Case 3:18-MJ-1214 (M.D. Tenn.), 19 September.
[81] United States v. Telfair. (2020) No. 19-CR-270 (E.D.N.Y.), 3 February.
[82] United States v. Tinoco. (2018) No. 17-2059 (10th Cir.), 28 March.
[83] United States v. Turrella. (2012) No. 10-30051 (9th Cir.), 15 March.
[84] United States v. Twine. (1988) 853 F.2d 676, 678 (9th Cir.), 1 August.
[85] United States v. Twitty. (2019) Criminal Case No. 13-CR-00076-RBJ (D. Colo.), 4 January.
[86] United States v. Vandevere. (2019) No. 1: 19-cr-63-MOC (W.D.N.C.), 16 September.
[87] United States v. Wheeler. (2015) 776 F.3d 736, 743 (10th Cir.), 15 January.
[88] United States v. Wheeler. (2019) Criminal Case No. 12-cr-0138-WJM (D. Colo.), 9 July.
[89] United States v. White. (2010) Criminal Action No. 7:08-CR-00054 (W.D. Va.), 20 January.
[90] United States v. White. (2017) Criminal Action No. 7: 13CR00013 (W.D. Va.), 31 May.
[91] United States v. Williams. (2012) 693 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir.), 7 September.
[92] United States v. Williams. (2018) No. 17-2454 (8th Cir.), 26 October.
[93] United States v. Wyrick. (2011) No. 10-3117 (10th Cir.), 24 March.
[94] U.S. Department of Justice. (2010) Prosecuting Computer Crimes. [online] Washington: Office of Legal Education Executive Office for United States Attorneys.
[95] U.S. Department of Justice. (2016) The National Strategy for Child Exploitation Prevention and Interdiction.
[96] U.S. Model Penal Code.
[97] Van Der Wilk, A. (2018) Cyber violence and hate speech online against women. PE 604.979. Brussels: European Parliament.
[98] Virginia v. Black. (2003) 538 U.S. 343, 360, 7 April.
[99] Volokh, E. (2016) The Freedom of Speech and Bad Purposes. UCLA Law Review, 63.
[100] White v. United States. (2019) No. 6: 17-cv-689-Orl-28GJK (M.D. Fla.), 14 February.
[101] Women and Gender Equality Canada. (2019) New federal investment will help end cyberviolence. [press release] 27 August. Available from: https://www.canada.ca/en/status-women/news/2019/08/new-federal-investment-will-help-end-cyberviolence.html [Accessed 3 December 2019]
Copyright © 2020 Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology