Slashdot Mirror


ID Thief Tries To Get Witnesses Whacked

adeelarshad82 writes "Pavel Valkovich of Sherman Oaks, CA has pleaded guilty to solicitation of murder, admitting that he attempted to hire hit-men to kill witnesses working with Federal authorities in their investigation of Valkovich's ID theft activities and subsequent crimes. According to the Justice Department: '...Valkovich and others had stolen personal identifying information and used that information to transfer funds from victims' bank accounts to PayPal accounts.'"

10 of 168 comments (clear)

  1. What. The. Funk? by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Valkovich will face a statutory maximum of 50 years in prison: 20 years for the murder-for-hire and 30 years for the bank fraud.

    Two things amaze me:

    One, that you can get more jail time for moving 440,000 from one DB column to another than for trying to have someone killed.

    Two, that actual bankers that committed fraud to the tune of trillions were punished by (at most) being handsomely paid off and sentenced to go golfing for the rest of their lives.

    What a strange "justice" system we've created for ourselves.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    1. Re:What. The. Funk? by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He who owns the system makes the rules. Where's the news?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:What. The. Funk? by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It has absolutely nothing to do with how much money you stole. If this guy had stolen 20 billion dollars he'd still be going to jail.

      It all has to do with HOW you steal it and WHAT you call it. Example:
      Typical theft/bank fraud: Jail time
      Experimental accounting strategies and strategic investment and pay-rate schedule (aka bank fraud): Golden parachute and another cushy job

      --
      -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
    3. Re:What. The. Funk? by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But wonder what's going on inside the guy's head tho, he acts like he would be in an action movie:

      The answer is in the first comment of this thread:

      20 years for the murder-for-hire and 30 years for the bank fraud.

      ==> he just tried to save 10 years of prison time. Had his plot gone through, there would have been no witness for the fraud, and all they could stick with him would be the murder: 20 years, instead of 30!

      And this is the reason why it is so dangerous to have laws on the book that carry a penalty that is harsher than for murder...

    4. Re:What. The. Funk? by instantkamera · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Logic fail.

      he just tried to save 10 years of prison time. Had his plot gone through, there would have been no witness for the fraud, and all they could stick with him would be the murder: 20 years, instead of 30!

      Had this plot "gone through" he would have actually been charged with something other than "solicitation of murder", the charge carrying a 20 year sentence. Let's assume the murder charge is worse.

      And this is the reason why it is so dangerous to have laws on the book that carry a penalty that is harsher than for murder...

      again, the 20 years ... not for ACTUAL MURDER. Not to mention, Im pretty sure this guy wasn't weighing his jail time options and "settling" for 20 years. I think he wanted to silence the witness(es) and not get caught doing it.

  2. Re:It wasn't him... by dikdik · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I have had my identity stolen twice and both time it was a data breach with a merchant I was dealing with. I find it appalling that it is so easy to get a credit or signup for a loan. How about more responsibility on the bank merchant part? The there credit bureaus should be held responsible for this mess. They are making profit using our data and we end up paying to clean it up or monitor it.

  3. "Copyright theft" and *Identity theft" by erroneus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Those two terms have something in common -- both were trumped up by people with something to hide and would rather misdirect the public about what is going on.

    There is no theft of copyright unless someone somehow convinces the registry office that he is the author and owner of the material. It is "infringement" but that word doesn't sound bad or terrible enough to get people excited.

    And there is no "Identity theft" either... well, there is when someone is actively out there claiming to be someone else while that someone else is thereafter doubted as to who he is. Not sure that actually happens though. What identity theft really is is fraud perpetrated against banks and other institutions who created a system by which a person is identified by numbers that are shared frequently and openly. I hesitate to call them secret numbers since every time you participate in the system, you surrender nearly all of your personal identification numbers. The system that has been created is EXTREMELY weak and easy to game. It is also extremely easy and inexpensive for banks, financial institutions and shops to use in doing business. And just like the "credit score" system created by the same people, it puts the burden on the individuals rather than on the people who created and use the systems to their advantage every day.

    Seriously, what a great system? They collect all of the advantages, and all disadvantages are shifted to individuals!

    Banker says, "no, I was not harmed by this guy who fraudulently stole money from my bank...it was the poor schmuck whose bank account information was used! And I'll tell you something else! I'm holding that poor schmuck responsible for my incompetent system!"

    Shop keeper says, "no, I was not harmed by this guy who fraudulently stole property from my store... it was the poor schmuck whose credit card numbers or credit information was used in making the purchase... and I'll tell you something else, I'm holding the poor schmuck responsible for paying the bill! And if he doesn't, I'll file bad credit reports and in some states, file in court to have a judgement against him too!"

    The weaknesses of the system are clear and obvious. It is also clear and obvious who is being stolen from. By changing the name from fraud to identity theft, they are attempting to make it less clear and obvious who the victim is.

  4. Re:i was called to jury duty once by DamonHD · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And do you have any amusing anecdotes about other civic duties you dodged such as paying taxes or helping injured people by the side of the road?

    Rgds

    Damon

    --
    http://m.earth.org.uk/
  5. Re:i was called to jury duty once by timholman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And do you have any amusing anecdotes about other civic duties you dodged such as paying taxes or helping injured people by the side of the road?

    I'm waiting for the amusing anecdote about how he was wrongly sued by someone, and a jury of bigoted uneducated idiots found in favor for the plaintiff, because all of the intelligent educated jurors dodged jury duty and then smugly posted about it on Slashdot.

    Or maybe the story of how he was wrongfully accused of rape or child abuse, and then a jury of idiots convicted him because all the "smart" people had better things to do with their time than sit in a trial.

    It is always interesting to me how the people who complain the loudest about unjust laws and convictions are so often the ones who can't be bothered to participate in the very system that metes out justice to their fellow citizens.

    I've only served on one jury in my life. It was a pain in the butt to reschedule my life around it, but I would not hesitate to serve again. If I were wrongfully accused, I would pray that intelligent and educated people in that jury box would listen to facts and not emotional blather when deciding my fate.

  6. Re:What bankers? by tonyreadsnews · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I agree there is plenty of blame to go around
    However, you seem to think that all people fit into one of those categories.

    What you've missed is that there are 'little guys' who didn't take out a loan they couldn't afford, and didn't make a loan to some high risk person.
    But these 'little guys' are getting screwed because of each of the parties you mentioned. Some of them have been laid off, some have seen their investments brutalized, some are now stuck in their house because their once 80 LTV is now 105 LTV.
    These are a larger percentage of those complaining
    Not to mention the same 'evil bankers' that made the loans also pushed to get regulations relaxed, which makes them somewhat more responsible as without their reckless behavior this mess

    Now these 'little guys' find out their tax dollars are going to the same companies that got us into the mess while these companies also are basically getting free money to make new loans and start back with business as usual.

    At least that's what I complain about and I'm one of those 'little guys'