Slashdot Mirror


Text Message Scammer Gets Five Years in Prison (reuters.com)

36-year-old Fraser Thompson is going to prison, according to Reuters, after receiving a five-year sentence for "defrauding" cellphone customers out of millions of dollars. An anonymous reader quotes Reuters: Prosecutors said Thompson engaged in a scheme to sign up hundreds of thousands of cellphone customers for paid text messaging services without their consent. The customers were subsequently forced to pay more than $100 million for unsolicited text messages that included trivia, horoscopes and celebrity gossip, according to the prosecutors. They said the scheme was headed by Darcy Wedd, Mobile Messenger's former chief executive, who was found guilty by a jury in December but has not yet been sentenced. "They ripped off everyday cellphone users, $10 a month, netting over $100 million in illegal profits, of which Thompson personally received over $1.5 million," Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said in a statement.
Thompson was ordered to forfeit $1.5 million in "fraud proceeds," according to the article, and was convicted of conspiracy, wire fraud, identity theft and money laundering.

Seven other people also pleaded guilty to participating in the scam -- and one has already been sentenced to 33 months in prison.

69 comments

  1. That's not long enough to deter the crime. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Double it or more and it's still inadequate.

    1. Re: That's not long enough to deter the crime. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What crime? The article does explain what he did.

    2. Re: That's not long enough to deter the crime. by sgtsquid · · Score: 1

      Fuck off Ivan. The summary explains quite clearly what happened, and everyone here sees you for the shill you are. How long will it be before we read about your shenanigans here? You obviously have some reason to defend this criminal.

    3. Re: That's not long enough to deter the crime. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quote the line that explains it, because it isn't in the summery or article. If a court said he is guilty, there is a reason, but what is it?

      Also, don't be toxic.

    4. Re: That's not long enough to deter the crime. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "engaged in a scheme to sign up hundreds of thousands of cellphone customers for paid text messaging services without their consent" in the FS and "he was found guilty of defrauding cellphone customers by charging them millions of dollars for unwanted text messages." in the FA, you F'ing illiterate?

      "Thompson was convicted of conspiracy, wire fraud, identity theft and money laundering in September, according to court filings." Seriously you can't miss it, you lying cunt.

      Toxic = passing false info intentionally. You can read.

    5. Re: That's not long enough to deter the crime. by sgtsquid · · Score: 1

      He's not illiterate, he's just a shill. He's probably involved in some kind of similar criminal activity himself. Honor among thieves, or something like that.

    6. Re: That's not long enough to deter the crime. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That tells me what he was accused of, not what he did. What did this guy do? Did he scape mobile numbers? Did he sign them up personally? Did he write a program that did it? Did he pay people to do it? I'm not saying he's innocent, I'm saying there are no details to explain what he personally did to be punished. Being an executive isn't a crime.

    7. Re:That's not long enough to deter the crime. by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      Double it or more and it's still inadequate.

      This type of blatant fraud seems to never get adequately punished. This saga of what appears to be ongoing habitual fraud finally came to an end and the guy got only 108 months.

    8. Re: That's not long enough to deter the crime. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do believe you're being purposefully dense.

  2. Re:Question by jandrese · · Score: 2

    Since he was described as an executive of "Mobile Messenger" I'm guessing he ran those scammy text-you-shit services and then signed people up without their knowledge. Pretty much everybody I knew with a phone line (cell or land) got at least one of those damn services stuck on it at one time or another. It was the #1 reason you had to check your phone bill each month. The most irritating thing is that you would then have to call the phone company that would always give you the runaround about how you must have signed up for the thing because they're always legitimate and I'm a bad guy for trying to rip off this poor legitimate business. I mean they have the record of my signup right there showing how I personally clicked the "I want to sign up" box from my home in Moscow in the middle of the night.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
  3. Very interesting. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What I find so very interesting is that the judicial system doesn't seem to equate the overall amount of economic damage as being the same as if done to a single individual. Basically, you give everyone on the planet a paper cut and get a slap on the wrist but if you give one person 7 million paper cuts then it's somehow worse despite being far less damaging by three orders of magnitude.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:Very interesting. by sjames · · Score: 1

      They have to do that so they can have an excuse to fine their corporate overlords less than they make in excess profits when they scam the world for billions.

    2. Re:Very interesting. by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

      It’s less damaging only if you’re not the person receiving those 7 million paper cuts. Otherwise: ouch. No, punching 50 people is not the same a beating 1 guy to death.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    3. Re:Very interesting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... it's somehow worse ...

      Because that one person suffered a far worse loss of comfortable "life, liberty and pursuit of" something than everyone else. Because, demanding we suffer unequally justifies people being murdered/raped for elitist profit (ie. slavery, US "trail of tears").

      While not a "fuck you, I got mine" situation, it's still a denial of social responsibility. A responsible society protects its disadvantaged members by recognizing rights and enabling equality of opportunity.

    4. Re:Very interesting. by imidan · · Score: 2

      He had to forfeit his ill-gotten gains and is sentenced to 5 years prison. I don't know if that's really a slap on the wrist. What are we supposed to do, throw him in a cell forever? What's the maximum prison time for his conviction? We've already lost enough resources to this guy, I don't really want us to pay for his care and feeding for the rest of his life. Let the loser do his time and go back to his miserable life.

    5. Re:Very interesting. by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 2

      Yeah, because nearly everyone recovers to 100% from a paper cut, somewhat fewer recover from being stabbed (physical and psychologically) and history has only one very dubious record of a man recovering after being stabbed to death.

      Maybe I should rephrase. The amount of economic damage done by murdering or crippling an individual is not just the act itself, it's the loss of that person's entire life after that point, and the loss of their children and their children's children. That's not the same as "the disutility of feeling a paperclip".

    6. Re:Very interesting. by Zalbik · · Score: 4, Funny

      history has only one very dubious record of a man recovering after being stabbed to death.

      Jesus Christ, who was that?!?!

      It sounds like the plot of a terrible book.

    7. Re:Very interesting. by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      So let me get that straight, a crazy tall Asian women (equal opportunity imagination) walks down a street and punches 50 passes by (http://scienceblogs.com/whitecoatunderground/2009/03/18/a-simple-bump-on-the-head-can/ and http://www.smh.com.au/national...), failing at intent should not be rewarded.

      As in this case, they stole as much as they possibly felt they could get away with from as many people as possible, also cheating their shareholders and investors and honest staff, all who have to pay a much greater economic price. That fine, just what the bullshit, that's fine is now a free loan, at least charge interest on the fine but in reality double is the norm, you pay back not only what you stole but the same again as the penalty (there is zero penalty in the first part of the fine, you are just returning what you stole, so not a fine at all).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    8. Re:Very interesting. by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      What I find so very interesting is that the judicial system doesn't seem to equate the overall amount of economic damage as being the same as if done to a single individual. Basically, you give everyone on the planet a paper cut and get a slap on the wrist but if you give one person 7 million paper cuts then it's somehow worse despite being far less damaging by three orders of magnitude.

      That's because the criminal system only seeks to separate the criminal from the rest of society.

      Economic recompense is done via the civil system. Given the minor amount of money, paid by each victim, unfortunately the scammer is likely to get away with this. This is the only reason we have class action lawsuits - because individually it is not worth the time and effort to pursue your own losses but it is if you can get several million to join your case.

      Of course, people hate class actions because they get a tiny trinket out of it - but given the average loss most people experience it rarely makes sense to pursue individual lawsuits - just how much time and effort are you wiling to spend to recovery $50, say? Even in small claims, you're looking at a day off, and $35+ in court fees (which cannot be claimed back). Makes getting that $10 rebate doing absolutely zilch far more appealing. (Oh yeah, the company will just write you your cheque - far cheaper to do so than to show up in court, so you waste time, money and effort, while the company doesn't lift a finger).

    9. Re:Very interesting. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      That's because the criminal system only seeks to separate the criminal from the rest of society.

      Even crimes are classified differently based on the amount of money taken. IANAL but as far as I know, everything over $10K is viewed as the same level of crime. I find that to be an oddity. Wouldn't it make more sense to view the severity of the crime as being proportional to the amount of money taken?

      There are definitely disparities in the law.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    10. Re:Very interesting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Rasputin.

  4. Re: Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "He defrauded 'normal' people by selling them stuff they could get elsewhere if they were willing to put the work in. Like every other company in the world.

  5. So, um, how did he get paid? by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Did these people had over CC number? Or of it more likely he had help from the carriers? The last time I heard about these scams they were only possible because companies like AT&T allowed them to tack on charges to your cell phone bill. I don't suppose that practice has ended. I know I still get warnings if I respond to a companies text messages.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:So, um, how did he get paid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been following the news articles over the past year and a bit as Zhenya is an old friend of mine.
      It has been said that they auto-subbed using mobile phone numbers they accumulated from various sources of the co-conspirators. No CC needed. The carriers allow this technique to occur (to this very day) via known methods and tack charges on to the customers phone bills.

    2. Re:So, um, how did he get paid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... that practice has ended.

      One trick was "First month free: Membership fee payable on subscribing". I wonder if truth-in-advertising shut that down. Then of course, the telcos allowed those vendors to charge for months when the service wasn't available and paid those service vendors before applying your cash to their own demand for money: Say "kickbacks".

    3. Re:So, um, how did he get paid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice that I don't have to worry about this crap - using a pre-paid service. I pay's me money and have 30 days worth of service and don't have to worry about the phone being stollen since I can deauth it quickly.

      Captcha related to subject

    4. Re: So, um, how did he get paid? by AntronArgaiv · · Score: 1

      The way to beat these guys, is to call your provider, talk nicely to them, and get them to block premium services and third party billing on your account.

  6. Re: Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guessing? You don't know? Oh wait, that's because the article doesn't tell you what he did.

  7. Re: Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    You get signed up for a premium SMS "service" by someone else, with having done anything yourself to subscribe. If you ignore the message, instead of texting STOP, you start getting billed.

    I experienced this several years ago. When I was signed up for a premium SMS by someone else, I called up Verizon and complained. Verizon told me they had unsubscribed me and put a premium SMS block on my account. Then they tried to bill me for it, anyway. I didn't end up paying that bill after another, angrier, call to Verizon about the issue.

    The scam is that unless people opt out, they automatically start getting billed because someone else subscribed them without their consent.

  8. Wish Facebook would be next by greenwow · · Score: 1

    They cost me almost $20 in overage text fees last month. I disabled text messages a couple of months ago as described here:

    https://www.facebook.com/help/170960386370271?helpref=faq_content

    But, I'm still getting them.

    1. Re: Wish Facebook would be next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thankfully, I haven't received text message spam from Facebook. However, I get spam notifications from their app. Usually it's a notification that someone has posted a comment, photo, or video. Despite disabling most notifications in the app, I see no way to turn off this spam. Although I could ban the app from sending any notifications, that would also eliminate the occasionally useful notifications. Facebook abuses app notifications, so it doesn't surprise me that they also abuse SMS notifications.

  9. Figures, next question by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    why aren't the Verizon/AT&T/etc execs who allow this in jail too? Yeah, yeah, we all know the answer. At a certain point the law no longer applies to you. This guy just wasn't there yet.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Figures, next question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All we really learned here is that you must make more than 1.5 million dollars before you can hope to be excused for all wrongdoings by the law.

      The other guy serving 33 months (about half of what this guy is serving) must have made at least 3+ million I guess. :p

    2. Re:Figures, next question by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      why aren't the Verizon/AT&T/etc execs who allow this in jail too? Yeah, yeah, we all know the answer

      Maybe because it's not illegal to provide for subscription services, and to take them down when someone points out they were scammed? If you think it SHOULD have been illegal to operate their systems that way (as it had been for YEARS), then you should be wondering why congress didn't pass a law requiring the networks to shutdown all of those services until they could rebuild them around a mechanism that forced all new subscriptions to involved proof of identity. Then you could ask for them to be prosecuted for not supporting the mandated far more cumbersome system. Complaining about a lame system that was born and saw considerable legitimate use before it started to be abused isn't the same as idiotically saying people who didn't cause the abused should be in prison.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    3. Re:Figures, next question by MushMouth · · Score: 1

      They settled a class action lawsuit over the whole thing a few years back.

    4. Re:Figures, next question by phayes · · Score: 1

      Even if they are not in Jail, Verizon/AT&T/etc should forfeit the money they made off these schemes as they were silently complicit in their commission and profited even more than the fraudsters.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
  10. Re:The value of "hard labor" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a pity you back a traitor and known-fraud having no criminal prosecution whatsoever, but think low-level scammers should get hard labor or capital punishment. You're inconsistent in defense of a known traitor. KYS.

  11. Re: Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this one of those "only in America" things? I've never even heard of that kind of scam

  12. 100 million vs 1.5 million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope the editor is wrong....$100 million in illegal profits, and only a $1.5 million fine?

    1. Re:100 million vs 1.5 million? by gravewax · · Score: 4, Informative

      perhaps you might want to read the whole thing. His cut was 1.5 million therefore he got fined what he stole (should have been at least double what he stole in my opinion, only losing what you gain is not sufficient penalty), the overall companies profits was 100 million for which many other people are also being prosecuted and I imagine the company will also face heavy penalties.

    2. Re:100 million vs 1.5 million? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Only 98.5 milion left! Per year that's barely 19 million. OMG communism!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:100 million vs 1.5 million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Smashing his face and breaking his bones is still a better idea ... never write again ... never talking again ... never walk again ... sociopath perp-thieves have a hard time understanding ... but extreme physical violence helps them get the message

    4. Re:100 million vs 1.5 million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While he might be a sociopath, you're a friggin' psychopath.

  13. Re: Question by gravewax · · Score: 1

    No, he actually signed up people WITHOUT asking them. No interaction from them at all.

  14. Theremos scamming bitch got what... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Vacation time? Look. Idiots! If you are going to scam, scam BILLIONS not a mill or two! Leason to be learnt!

  15. Re: Question by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

    "Prosecutors said Thompson engaged in a scheme to sign up hundreds of thousands of cellphone customers for paid text messaging services without their consent."

  16. Not enough! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "They ripped off everyday cellphone users, $10 a month, netting over $100 million in illegal profits, of which Thompson personally received over $1.5 million,"...

    He was charged only $1.5 million despite knowingly and intentionally causing $100 million in fraud? No wonder the fraudsters keep at it. He STILL WON. If he truly received "over $1.5 million" then he had net gain. He committed a major crime. His fines should have been significantly higher. One more case of blatant judicial system failure.

  17. Same thing for spam by Solandri · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If it takes you 5 seconds to determine a single email is spam and delete it, then a spammer who sends out 500 million emails has basically cost a cumulative 1 lifetime (79 years) in wasted time.

    We also do the same thing for financial (white collar) crime. The lifetime earnings for an average American is about $1.5 million. So by that metric, any white collar criminal who causes more than $1.5 million in damage should automatically get a life sentence. But we have this tendency to spread that cost over everyone, so $1.5 million becomes half a cent per American, and we sweep it under the rug. (To be fair, the same standard is used for non-white collar financial crimes like bank robbery. The harsher sentence is for threatening people working at or customers of the bank, not for stealing the money.)

    1. Re:Same thing for spam by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      But we have this tendency to spread that cost over everyone ... and we sweep it under the rug.

      That is the part that is so interesting.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    2. Re:Same thing for spam by cmseagle · · Score: 1

      any white collar criminal who causes more than $1.5 million in damage should automatically get a life sentence

      To what end? Studies show that harsher punishments don't significantly discourage perpetrators. You certainly don't need a lifetime to rehabilitate someone who committed a non-violent white collar crime. The only motivation I can think of behind a life sentence is vengeance, and I don't want revenge to be the motivating force behind the justice system.

    3. Re:Same thing for spam by chihowa · · Score: 1

      Besides vengeance, there's also the defensive action of removing a dangerous person from society. The motivation behind life and death sentences is to protect society from irredeemable people who cannot be rehabilitated.

      As much as I hate scams, I wouldn't necessarily put a scammer into that bucket, though.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    4. Re:Same thing for spam by deesine · · Score: 1

      "Studies show that harsher punishments don't significantly discourage perpetrators." For capital offenses, true. Go to Singapore and spit your gum on the sidewalk, I dare you.

      --
      damaged by dogma
    5. Re:Same thing for spam by cmseagle · · Score: 1

      Fair point. Even the Catholic church accepts the use of the death penalty in cases where it's the only viable means of protecting society. I think they (and I) would also say that there are always other viable options within the modern criminal justice systems (life in supermax prison, for example).

    6. Re:Same thing for spam by chihowa · · Score: 1

      Philosophically, I'm not entirely convinced that life imprisonment is less cruel than execution, assuming that a person is accurately determined to be a permanent and irreparable menace to others.

      Practically, even the best judicial systems aren't infallible and will certainly execute or permanently imprison innocent people. At least those with life in prison have the opportunity to fix a mistaken conviction.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  18. Re: Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you for the good info, AC. Im an SMS scam noob, and had no clue such shit was possible...

    Amazing that that feature is on by default.

  19. As long as he dies in prison justice is served by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As long as he dies in prison before his release date justice will have been served.

  20. White collar sentencing is a joke... by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

    I have always wondered why, when sentencing white collar criminals, they don't make the jail sentence equal to the amount of money they stole divided by the average American wage. So for example, this guy facilitated stealing $100 million, and the average US wage is $51,000/year. So this asshat would get 1,960 years in jail, because that is the effective amount of time he stole from his victims. Give him the option of lethal injection, but either way his life should be over and he should die in prison.

    The moral of the story is don't steal other peoples money, because money is quite literally other peoples lives, multiplied by a weighting factor of how valuable they are to society (at least for the working people, don't get me started on passive income).

    --
    If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
  21. Re: Question by easyTree · · Score: 1

    No, he actually signed up people WITHOUT asking them. No interaction from them at all.

    Pretty much the way every ordinary human is signed up for a boot on the neck from the government/associated cronies unless we jump through whatever hoop they're being paid to direct us to this month.

  22. Re: Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly. Just like I wrote here, unlike the government he was providing useful or fun services and you always had the option of unsubscribing. This man was a hero, he's a testament to how capitalism is supposed to work but Slashdot's antifa SJW anticapitalists are all about forcing people to pay for things they like like diversity and gun control and healthcare and open source but somehow when it comes to things people want like horoscopes they want it declared illegal.

  23. Good, Now... by nate_in_ME · · Score: 1

    ...go after the idiots that have sent me two text messages from random cell phone numbers lately saying someone is fraudlently accessing my Verizon account, and providing a [RandomIPAddress]:8080 address hidden behind a URL shortener to try and get me to "verify" my information to prevent my account from being suspended.

  24. Re:He thought he could scam the gangsters. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The moderators are out to prove that Kurtz was right. They will not acknowledge the horror in the mirror, and lash out against those of us with the arrogance to hold the mirror up and dare show them their real image!

  25. Re: Question by easyTree · · Score: 1

    Yeap and hosts files.

  26. Autorenewals should be the same way by omfglearntoplay · · Score: 1

    All the autorenewal BS that doesn't have a nice easy way to opt out of autorenewal should be treated with the same jailtime.

  27. The BIG question ... by dasgoober · · Score: 1

    What happened to the rest of the $100 million?