Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Prison Inmates Catfished $560,000 Out of Military Service Members in Sextortion Scam, NCIS Says (gizmodo.com)

Posted by msmash on from the closer-look dept.

Hundreds of military service members reportedly got caught up in a sextortion scam run by prison inmates using cellphones, according to a release issued by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS). From a report: Military agents from multiple criminal investigation groups have served summons and issued warrants for arrests related to the scheme. According to the NCIS, South Carolina and North Carolina prison inmates, assisted by outside accomplices, sought out service members through dating sites and social media, then took on false identities, feigned romantic interest, and exchanged photos.

Once the inmates had successfully catfished their targets, they would then pose as the father of the fake persona, insisting their child was underage and that the target had therefore committed a crime by exchanging photos. In some situations, the "father" claimed he wouldn't press charges if the target gave him money. Sometimes the catfisher would pose as law enforcement requesting money for the family.

82 of 165 comments (clear)

  1. This is why by phantomfive · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This is why bitcoin will always have a use.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:This is why by mermeid007 · · Score: 2

      LOL this is also why you should only meet women at a local bar. At least you know they are 21 and live nearby and you probably have friends in common.

    2. Re:This is why by mermeid007 · · Score: 1

      or 19 in Canada or whatever the drinking age is

    3. Re:This is why by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or, if you're using a dating site, exchange phone numbers as quickly as possible, chat on the phone, and meet in person. Don't do stupid **** like exchanging nude photos with people you've never met.

    4. Re: This is why by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Polite society doesn't exclude people because they've made mistakes in the past. That is almost the definition of polite.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:This is why by gravewax · · Score: 2

      It may be a tool for use, but it isn't necessary and wouldn't change a thing if it was gone. They have a wide array of options without bitcoin.

    6. Re:This is why by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually I had a friend the cops tried to pin a statutory story on who met a girl at a bar, she had a fake ID. Judge took one look and tossed it out, still cost him lawyers fees.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    7. Re:This is why by dryeo · · Score: 2

      There was a case here in Canada, back in the '50's I believe, where some poor guy picked up a girl at the bar, believing she was of age, got caught fucking her and charged with statutory rape. Due to the way the law was written, believing the girl was of age was not a defence and he got 5 years. The Judge was very apologetic when sentencing the guy but the law was the law.
      Shortly after, due to this case, the law was changed so that believing a girl was of age was a defence.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    8. Re: This is why by dryeo · · Score: 2

      You can politely torture someone to death and many an asshole is polite about it. Civilized people will forgive people for mistakes made in the past.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    9. Re: This is why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The defence is known as the "presumption of regularity" where you can assume another individual is law abiding: hence it was reasonable to believe she was 21+.

    10. Re: This is why by uncqual · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If a girl under 18 sneaks into the bar and you do her, even with her consent, your "She must have been 21 because she was in the bar" defense won't save you.

      There are guys who even checked a girl's convincing fake ID and relied on that as proof of her being over 18 yet have ended up convicted of statutory rape (although, I doubt police would get away with fake ids in a sting operation -- that would likely be crossing the entrapment threshold).

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    11. Re:This is why by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The Judge was very apologetic when sentencing the guy but the law was the law.

      Are judges in Canada legally obligated to return a guilty verdict? If so, that's crap. If not, that judge wasn't sorry in the least.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re: This is why by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1, Troll

      When you prove you can't play with others, the adults come and take away your toys. A felony is a very serious crime and it is appropriate to lose some civil rights afterwards, like being able to own a gun. The only reason it's an issue is that people who commit serious crimes are overwhelmingly Democrats. Republicans practice what they preach about being law-abiding. Aside from a few outliers, you simply don't find Republicans committing felonies. However Democrats have a big problem on their side of the aisle with criminals.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    13. Re:This is why by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Judges judge according to the law. Not according to what our feelings might be that day. I know that's a weird idea to the far left, but here we are.

      Is that what they told you? They lied, and you believed it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:This is why by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      Depends on where you live. In Texas, you are carded if you look under 40.

    15. Re:This is why by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      As far as I'm aware Canada has a court system modeled on Britain's, where Judges don't generally render verdicts at all, but leave that to a Jury, or the defendant themselves if they choose to plead guilty.

      (And, while it's not relevant here, while Jury Nullification is a thing, where a Jury refuses to issue a guilty verdict for a clearly guilty defendant on the grounds the law itself is unjust, it's also not supposed to be used except in extreme cases and a Judge who tells a jury of its existence - indeed, a lawyer who tells a jury of the principle, would be disciplined. But obviously that doesn't factor in here, where you appear to be accusing a Judge, not a jury, of hypocrisy.)

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    16. Re:This is why by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Well, I know bugger-all about the Canadian court system, but here in the USA you don't have to exercise your right to a trial by jury. I also know nothing about the possibly apocryphal anecdote in question. So at this phase, I'm all about asking questions :p

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:This is why by thomn8r · · Score: 1
      were you never under 21 in a bar

      Many times

    18. Re:This is why by thomn8r · · Score: 3, Funny
      Are judges in Canada legally obligated to return a guilty verdict?

      No, but they're legally obligated to apologize.

    19. Re: This is why by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Well you're not an adult.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    20. Re:This is why by dryeo · · Score: 2

      The guy was guilty as the law was written, so the Judge had no reason to throw the case out as the facts were clear. There was also no right about double jeopardy at the time so if the Judge had thrown it out, there could well have been a new trial. Really the Crown shouldn't have pursued the case but they did. Perhaps the whole idea was to force Parliament into fixing a bad law, which happened. At the time, Parliament was Supreme and Judges almost never bucked the law. That changed when we got our Charter of Rights in '82.
      Whether a jury was involved, I do not know, but even jury nullification wouldn't stop an appeal and the nullification thrown out at the time. That changed when juries kept nullifying Morganteller, an abortionist as the population as a whole got pissed off about it and our politicians do listen sometimes.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    21. Re:This is why by dryeo · · Score: 1

      A ticket for 36 in a 35 zone is within the margin of error of the radar gun or whatever and would be a reason for the Judge to throw it out.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    22. Re:This is why by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Our right to a jury is not as strong as in America. Basically it only kicks in at the possibility of getting over 5 years in prison and I believe people are less likely to elect trial by jury. Not sure if the case resulted in 5 years plus a day or less a day, both common on the books due to that 5 year thing.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    23. Re:This is why by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Leftist judges judge not according to something as outdated and stodgy as the law. No. They judge according to their *feelings*. If something gives them a bad feeling, they rule against it. Hell of a way to run a jurisprudence, eh?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    24. Re: This is why by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      You neither engaged with my ideas nor refuted my premises. You merely called me names. This is the address hominem logical fallacy. Please try again. Look into the political affiliations of criminals and let us all know if they are Republican or Democrat.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    25. Re: This is why by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      This time I will directly address the idea in your post: you don't understand logical fallacies. It wasn't ad hominem, it was abuse. Learn the difference.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    26. Re:This is why by gravewax · · Score: 1

      In most countries judges have very little leeway. Which on the whole is a good thing as a judge is not supposed to be deciding the good from the bad laws, they are supposed to rule and sentence according to the laws laid out before them. Yes that sometimes leads to cases which looked fucked up, but that needs to be fixed by those writing the laws.

    27. Re: This is why by Cederic · · Score: 1

      That's a tricky one. I can't find any recent cases where this is explicitly the situation but there are a lot of legal advice pages (including from actual lawyers) stating that statutory rape is a strict liability offence to which "the child's fake ID showed them to be of age" is not a defence.

      In the UK it's a bit easier: The legal age to drive is a year older than the legal age to have sex so only fuck people that own a car.

    28. Re: This is why by ImprovOmega · · Score: 1

      Actually, since we're talking about U.S. military service members here, the UCMJ governs. And weirdly, under the UCMJ Article 120 it is an affirmative defense to show that a) the person in question was at a minimum over 12 years of age AND b) the service member reasonably believed that the person in question was over the age of 16.

      So if a service member was subject to a court martial for having sex with an underage girl who was, say, 15 years old but in a bar with a fake ID. He could present evidence to the effect that a) she was in a bar drinking so he reasonably believed she was over 21, AND b) she is in reality 15 years old so he can use this defense.

      MOST states do not allow this, but I bring it up because it is a quirk in the UCMJ which applies to folks in the military.

    29. Re:This is why by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      You can keep hitting up the bars, that just means a better pool of women left for me. Oh, and better beer for me at the grocery store.

  2. More proof.... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1, Funny

    that the military isn't composed of the best and the brightest. "Military intelligence" is a fine oxymoron.

    1. Re:More proof.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When I joined the AF it's acceptance was higher than the Army, and yet I watched guys collect after-shave to drink, and had test scores of 30(or less) out of 100. Yup, high quality recruits!

    2. Re:More proof.... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I intend to be offensive. Fuck the American culture of hero-worship of anyone in a uniform and with a gun.

    3. Re:More proof.... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      AC AF equipment is expensive. Most nations test and re test their AF people to ensure their AF can "fly" when needed.
      The AF is one part of the mil that has to "work" as people/media tend to notice the flying part.
      Its not like a ship/sub that can be returned to port and have contractors repair for months in secret.
      A new tank that can be put on the back of a big truck and repaired later.

      Spending millions only to find out later that a person will never be able to fly is another problem many AF took decades to study and understand.
      AF got tired of having so many pilots who could not take the g forces.

      The other end of the scale was Project 100,000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... that accepted random people well below all military mental or medical standards.

      The question for US "Military Intelligence" now is to show all "chat" was 100% domestic to the USA.
      The complex intelligence work of another friendly nations "military intelligence" :)
      Another nation doing intelligence gathering on all ranks of the US mil?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    4. Re:More proof.... by Solandri · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The data contradicts your belief. Military enlistees are better educated, have higher IQs, and come from wealthier families than their peers in the general population.

      Entrapment schemes like the one described in TFA are by their very definition designed to trap people who are behaving normally and reasonably. If there's any selection bias going on, it'd be on the part of the scammers. They might deliberately target military personnel because the potential penalty for being entrapped is much greater for military personnel (prison + dishonorable discharge) than for civilians (only prison), making them more likely to pay the extortion fee.

    5. Re:More proof.... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Most people in the USAF are not pilots, and don't fly as part of their job.

      Sure, the USAF has multi-million dollar equipment, but they also have floors to sweep and potatoes to peel.

    6. Re:More proof.... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Fuck the American culture of hero-worship of anyone in a uniform and with a gun.

      The hero worship increases proportionally to the square of the distance from the nearest military base. When travelling in uniform, people would buy me drinks. But just off base, lawns would have signs that said "Dogs and Marines Keep off the Grass". Familiarity breeds contempt.

      Semper fi.

    7. Re:More proof.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      that contempt is usually well earned and easy to understand how peoples view would improve at distance. I have lived near a military base and the lack of respect for the local community and property by those from the base was atrocious. It is actually something I would always look at in future to ensure a place I buy is not near a base.

    8. Re: More proof.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but military contracting is still counted as military expenditures for budget purposes. Prior to the Rs taking back Congress under Obama, the AF was working to "in-source" a lot of the support jobs formerly contracted out to private outfits like CH2M/Hill because of the massive waste and corruption they were engaged in.
      With the R's in control of all three branches, the feeding troughs are back in business for military contractors.

    9. Re:More proof.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      All that the "data" prove is that the U.S. is so poorly educated and suffers from so much inequality that even the minimal recruitment standards they impose put the mean of enlistees above that of the average population. That doesn't even come close to making them the "best and brightest," let alone even particularly smart.
      It just means they have successfully kept out REALLY stupid, poor, and uneducated people.

    10. Re:More proof.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's not just familiarity, it's that there's an increase in malfeasance. Sure, it's not every service person that misbehaves, but seeing a couple will make far more of an impression than dozens that are behaving themselves.

      But, there's also the issue that an awful lot of those places with bases are also places with people that are educated enough to know that the biggest threats to America come from the things that the military does. 9/11 was a direct consequence of the military's involvement in the Middle East and the CIA's funding of Osama Bin Ladin.

      We'd be far safer if the military would just stay out of foreign conflicts that have nothing to do with us.

    11. Re:More proof.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You give thanks to the marines who, right or wrong, faught for your freedom, your rights, and your way of life, for you.

      Wars are seldom just, often over resources, and are often due to a total failure of the political and investor class to treat those they are supposed to look after with self-respect and dignity. Sometimes society makes mistakes, and sometimes a lot of people get drug into the gutter right along with those mistakes. Long history there if you care to go look.

      Frankly, Fuck the people who don't make investments in politics and their own interests to keep us from getting there in the first place.

      Buy a Marine a beer. Not every one of em' is good at what they do, but at least they did it for you.

    12. Re: More proof.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You don't understand, the US military is a *welfare* scheme that is somewhat palatable to the far right. Think about it.

    13. Re: More proof.... by bradley13 · · Score: 2

      Fine, but first: can you please explain how the US military went from being reviled in the 70's to the hero worship of today? I really do not understand this, given that the wars of the past couple of decades have been even less honorable and less justified than Vietnam.

      --
      Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    14. Re:More proof.... by Pikoro · · Score: 1, Interesting

      And this is why we will never get proper healthcare or cheaper education in the USA.

      See, if college/university were within the grasp of "the plebs" and healthcare were more affordable, then nobody would enlist in the military anymore because the primary reason of joining are those 2 things.

      Nobody honestly signs up to become a bullet sponge.

      --
      "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
    15. Re:More proof.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I am a veteran. I guess my reading comprehension must be lacking. My understanding is that cutting off the bottom 1/3 is the starting point. From there you need to remove those with criminal records, health problems, and can't pass a PT test (which isn't that hard). Boot camp is as much about weeding out people who have no chance of handling combat stress as it is training. After boot camp, academy, ROTC, or OCS, you go to your job's school. The school will further weed out people who can't hack it. The job training isn't like college where you can just take the class again and gain. Depending on the school, you will be sent to an easier job if you fail a portion. If you then fail that, you are given the boot. Some enlisted schools are notorious for being tough. EOD is the poster child for tough enlisted schools. To further trim the fat, the services will kick you out if you don't get promotions in a very generous time frame. Judging from my interactions with various ranks, it seems to work pretty well. I would describe most general officers as equanimous.
      It isn't perfect, some real pieces of work get through, but generally GIs can be relied on to show up on time and do their job.

      Contractors is one of the reasons I got out. They were often paid twice as much for the same job, or in some cases, an easier job. Relying on contractors is also a great way for GI skills to get stale. In my situation, the companies told the government that the military was too stupid to do what they were doing and the government believed them. What they were doing was basically junior level systems administration that the GIs were perfectly capable of doing. How the company ended up in the position is a long story, but it isn't due to inept officers. Technology improvements changed the nature of the job from highly specialized and outside the skills of normal IT to normal IT. The end result was wasted money, substandard service, and poor GI retention. The GIs either got out, did whatever they could to get transferred, or in certain circumstances ended up with a lack of skills and low confidence. In the latter situation, it was people who didn't choose IT with no background in it and came straight from school. It took a while, I had been out for a while when it happened, but eventually the company doing the junior admin stuff was caught in their BS and canned. Since commanders are replaced every two years, they probably didn't get enough exit interviews from GIs transferring or separating to notice the pattern.

    16. Re:More proof.... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      The data contradicts your belief. Military enlistees are better educated, have higher IQs, and come from wealthier families than their peers in the general population.

      More of them have graduated high school, but less of them have graduated college, so I'm not sure you can call them better educated. In fact, I'm sure you can't. IQ scores are largely bullshit, but they are irrelevant to your argument since your fine citation states that they only discard the lowest third of applicants by IQ, not anything about what those scores are. If most of the people who apply to join the military have below-average IQ, then they can discard the bottom third and still wind up with an average IQ which is below the national average. As for wealthier families, your own source also states that this could reasonably be because poorer families are less likely to produce qualified applicants. I figure it's because of confirmation bias, though. People whose basic needs are met are more likely to believe that the military is part of people having their basic needs met. If they're not very smart, which as we've established is not screened out by the military enlistment procedure, then this might seem very reasonable. And there's no correlation between income and intelligence, so that washes ok.

      TL;DR: Your citation proves only that military members aren't poor, not that they aren't stupid.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:More proof.... by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      And yet has the most progressive treatment of women.

    18. Re:More proof.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Maybe if Marines would pick up after themselves after pooping on people's lawns then they'd get a little more respect.

      I've seen Navy personnel that had successfully been trained to do this. Doubt if it would work with Marines though.

    19. Re:More proof.... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      The inappropriate defecation is not caused by a lack of training, but by an excess of alcohol.

    20. Re:More proof.... by coolsnowmen · · Score: 1

      The same is true of any collage town. 18-23 year olds...

    21. Re:More proof.... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      From there you need to remove those with criminal records, health problems, and can't pass a PT test (which isn't that hard).

      Except they're letting more of those kind of people into the military these days. There's been numerous articles about it. How they're having to accept people they never would have accepted before, in all of these categories. So no.

      After boot camp, academy, ROTC, or OCS, you go to your job's school. The school will further weed out people who can't hack it.

      Except they've got MOSes for idiots as well as geniuses.

      Contractors is one of the reasons I got out. They were often paid twice as much for the same job

      Yeah, that's how badly you're getting fucked if you join the military.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  3. Honestly, by humankind · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's hard to tell who the bad guys are in this story?

    1. Re:Honestly, by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Government officials who gave computer access to inmates.

      The inmates were using smuggled cell phones.

    2. Re:Honestly, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's hard to tell who the bad guys are in this story?

      What’s odd about a bunch of mostly 18-20-something military members using dating sites and finding out their date is lying about their age?
      This is so common it’s annual training for young enlisted guys. How’s that make them bad?

  4. Re:This didn't happen when Obama was president by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The difference of course being that Trump NEVER visited with the troops and complained about Obama's golfing, which he's quadrupled. So there's some truth there, but also that's a stretched diaper in Trump's case.

  5. Re:Discharge them by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 4, Informative

    Did they intend to commit a crime, though -- i.e. did the fake dating profiles have a birth date that was over 18 years ago? This is basically an online variant of the old scam. Women gets a guy drunk, takes him home from a bar, they get naked. Random guy bursts in on them naked. Guy either pretends to be:

    (1) The woman's angry husband, who'll report the guy to his CO for adultery
    (2) An angry pimp demanding payment
    (3) The woman's father, and the woman is actually 16.
    (4) An undercover cop investigating a prostitution ring.

    Either way, some money changes hands and everyone is on their merry way.

  6. Payment in secrets... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is a technique China and Russia use to collect military secrets. Extortion, and instead of being paid in cash, payment comes in the form of information about weapons systems, sensor performance, etc.

    It works.

    1. Re:Payment in secrets... by mermeid007 · · Score: 1

      Israel does that too, but we don't call it espionage

    2. Re:Payment in secrets... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      It works.

      It would stop working if we decriminalized texting.

    3. Re:Payment in secrets... by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      Loose slips sink ships.

      As if that expression needed to be more of a tongue twister.

    4. Re: Payment in secrets... by houghi · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of many years ago when a Swedish or Danish person went to pre-wall Russia and did the nasty with his none-wife. Russia tries to blackmail, guy confesses to wife and media and explains blackmail atempt.

      The issue is that many things, while legal, are an issue. Iyou should be able to ask dor a t-shirt with your penis on it and sue them for copyright infrindgement at the same time.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  7. Cyber Romeo spy ring? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    The old method was to wait in bars and clubs around any US/UK mil site and offer instant friendship.
    Get to know the base workings and slowly find someone with some lifestyle to hide.

    Was this just the start of a decade long spy attempt to map out US officers personality traits by chatting with their low rank staff?

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  8. That particular scam by BankRobberMBA · · Score: 2

    That scam is called 'the Badger Game' and is still popular today.

    About the criminal intent, this happened in the US. In the United States almost every jurisdiction has 'strict liability' on their age of consent laws. This means that you are strictly liable for any lewd activity with a person below the age of consent, REGARDLESS OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF THAT PERSON'S AGE.

    This is explicitly done to remove the "I didn't know!" defense. It isn't enough to say "I saw an ID, and she looked old enough, and..."

    It doesn't matter. This is why they call mature-looking minors 'jail-bait'.

    1. Re:That particular scam by cwatts · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This scam isn't limited to the military... They called me, and I am not in the military and i'm not on dating sites. And, of course, i dont send pictures of my junk to people. Based what the guy said I figure they got my info off facebook. He told me $500 would cover my "transgressions" or else. I told him to "Bring it, bitch" and never heard from him again.

      Scammers like this are all bark and no bite.

      --
      chris watts íë¦ìS ì(TM)ì
    2. Re:That particular scam by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      Did he say this in a heavy accent while claiming he was from the IRS?

    3. Re:That particular scam by irving47 · · Score: 1

      Does it change if there is an intermediary? They legally committed fraud if they scammed through the dating sites, which would have required both parties to be adults. (No, not suggesting the dating site get sued. Just wondering if the act of fraud changes anything)

      --
      I had a sucky sig.
    4. Re:That particular scam by ImprovOmega · · Score: 1

      About the criminal intent, this happened in the US. In the United States almost every jurisdiction has 'strict liability' on their age of consent laws. This means that you are strictly liable for any lewd activity with a person below the age of consent, REGARDLESS OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF THAT PERSON'S AGE.

      These folks are military. The UCMJ actually allows for the "I thought she was 18" defense (actually, technically, 16, but damn that's creepy) under Article 120. But you are right, most civilian jurisdictions have strict liability.

  9. Just a very basic "Internet 101" tip: by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    Don't send money to anyone you meet on the internet, ever.
    EVEN IF SHE PROMISES TO SUCK YOUR DICK.

    --
    -Styopa
  10. But what about? by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    Will the Naval Criminal Investigative Service be investigating the hundreds of military service members that were doing things they probably shouldn't have been doing?

    1. Re:But what about? by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      They already do that. Are you an idiot?

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  11. Call prison call costs down to say $0.005 min max by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

    Call prison call costs down to say $0.005 min max and then the cell phone issue will be cut down big time.

  12. Re: Call prison call costs down to say $0.005 min by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No it won't. Those prison phones are recorded and don't go online genius.

    The prisons don't care anyways, it's just contraband to confiscate. If they care they will deploy 1 Stingray per prison and now the cellphones don't stop ringing so your ass is caught immediately or your battery drained. Either way they could easily make cellphones useless in prison but they don't. They're just there to fleece the tax payers with the least amount of spending. They'll expend all kinds of "effort" because it makes them look good to the plebs. But spending tax dollars responsibly is asking too much.

  13. Re:Discharge them by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

    This is basically an online variant of the old scam

    Forsyte wrote a nice short story about this theme. With the added twist that the victim was an ex bomb disposal expert.

  14. Re:Call prison call costs down to say $0.005 min m by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

    I have a better idea: Put cell phone jammers in prisons so those ass phones become worthless.

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  15. Re: Call prison call costs down to say $0.005 min by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

    The legal issues are because the of the FCC rules. I say change the laws to allow them to block cell phones in prisons. Just like most prisons don't have guards who carry guns, guards should not be allowed to carry cell phones in the prison.

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  16. Presence of intermediary by BankRobberMBA · · Score: 1

    Well, I am not a lawyer, and we are stretching the boundaries of my knowledge here, but...

    In this particular case, I am pretty sure the soldiers are off the hook because there were never any underage people involved, just scammy convicted felons. They are liable to see some disciplinary action through their commands for trying to hide it, but probably nothing too severe. And they may get off with nothing at all, it depends on the people in the chain of command above them.

    In general, I don't think the intermediary would make someone innocent of the statutory rape/lewd act with a minor/child pornography offense. The whole point of strict liability is "we're not accepting any excuses." That said, I suspect the judge at trial (or jury, if there is one) would see that as mitigating evidence. This might reduce the sentence, or it might get the prosecutor to agree to some other charge with a lighter sentence. It might get the charge plead down to something that doesn't require registration as a sex offender, which would be huge.

    Honestly, I'm not sure. I haven't read that many cases about age of consent violations.

    1. Re:Presence of intermediary by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      IANAL either, and I need more information. From what I gather from TFA, they seem to have no idea about the age.

      After the service member responded, prisoners would then assume a role of the female's father, who claimed the female was a juvenile.

      However, TFA didn't clearly say anything about those service members knowing those fictitious young females' age before hand. If they knew about the age and the age was younger than 18, then there is no defend for them and they are possibly (dishonorably) discharged. If they didn't know and there was no evidence of the knowledge, or they were told that the age was 18+, then I would agree with you that the punishment shouldn't be too harsh (but could still face a discharge).

  17. Re:Call prison call costs down to say $0.005 min m by geoscodin · · Score: 1

    I meant to mark this Insightful, but my clumsy finger hit Flambait, so I'm commenting to remove it since I can't correct it.
    The prisons here have been fighting to be allowed to jam mobile phones, but so far the Feds won't allow it.

  18. Must be Grisham fans by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

    This is exactly the plot of the John Grisham book "The Brethren".

  19. Your'e cooking... by Mats+Svensson · · Score: 1

    ...with butter.

  20. Huh by BankRobberMBA · · Score: 1

    I did not know that. Thanks.