Thirty-eight people in the U.S. and Romania have been charged in two indictments alleging they used complicated Internet phishing schemes to steal thousands of credit and debit card numbers, U.S. and Romanian authorities announced Monday. The indictments, in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and the District of Connecticut, focus on two related phishing schemes with ties to organized crime, the U.S. Department of Justice said. Phishing involves sending e-mail messages that look like official correspondents from banks or credit card vendors in an attempt to get recipients to go to a fake Web site and enter their account numbers. The Romanian members of the organization obtained thousands of credit and debit card accounts and other personal information through phishing, according to the indictment. The group sent more than 1.3 million spam e-mail messages in one phishing attack, the DOJ said. The Romanians collected the victims' information and sent the data to cashiers in the U.S. through Internet chat messages, the DOJ said. The U.S. cashiers used hardware called encoders to record the fraudulently obtained information onto the magnetic strips on the back of credit and debit cards. Cashiers then directed other criminals called runners to test the fraudulent cards by checking balances or withdrawing small amounts of money at ATMs.
5/19/08
PC World: 38 in US, Romania Charged in Phishing Schemes: by Grant Gross
For the complete report from PC World click on this link
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
July 22, 2008 - this is not the only corruption is happening in Romania - Read how the Central Bank and the EU cover major thefts.
July 22, 2008 - After reading a laudatory speech on by the U.S. Ambassador to Romania, I realize the depth of political diversion is not limited in this world. I think the U.S. Ambassador to Romania has a skewed perspective or has been persuaded by Romania’s political elite to issue statements that are so far removed from the truth it’s pathetic. The Ambassador should read excerpts from trials in North America that clearly display corruption by Romania’s Central Bank and the upper echelon of political figures in Romania. Had he done his research or even taken a good look at some legally documented history perhaps he would think twice before putting his foot is his mouth. Read on.
The Central Bank of Romania has covered so many thieveries from private investments, it isn’t funny. I hope Americans and particular anyone considering making any substantial investment in the Romanian economy has the where with all to take a look at some hard facts that politicians are conveniently over looking for numerous reasons. Even the European Court of Human Rights has turned its back on the corruption by disallowing a case registered against Romania in their court. The case involved corruption committed directly by The Central Bank of Romania who stole $12 million U.S. from a privately held company owned by a Canadian citizen. To cover their theft they accused and illegally tried a Canadian Citizen. This is a true story, legally documented. It is the story of the little guy being stepped on by a tremendous machine - all for political and financial gain of the elite.
The case in reference, 9701-04, was registered with the ECHR in September 2004. It revealed a political scam exposing The Central Bank of Romania in the act of thievery from The Darianne Program for Agriculture, a private company developed by an individual who defected from Communism under Ceausescu returning only after the supposed fall of Communism.
The Program, reviewed and approved by The Romanian Parliament and Senate even had the blessing of then President Iliescu. The Program flourished employing 1,500 Romanians in its bakeries, slaughter houses, milk processing factories, ice cream manufacturing factories and retail stores. Dariannes’ success created such credibility in the European community; it was able to bring unprecedented foreign financing to the Program. This financing was administered by Banco di Napoli (Italy) and Den Danske Bank (Denmark). Because of the value of the financing, in the eyes of the lender the only credible bank to guarantee the loan was The Central Bank of Romania. The Central Bank gladly accepted this responsibility assigning administration of the loans to two newly formed Romanian banks, Dacia Felix and Credit Bank.
Foreign financing was directed to a specific turn-key project in The Program, giving Darianne the right to access equipment, not cash. The idea was revenues generated by the new manufacturing facilities would repay the loan. The Program did just that until two major projects were skillfully compromised by falsified documents showing delivery of equipment, when in fact equipment was not delivered. Even though this was immediately reported to the Romanian police, Interpol, the Romanian Ministry of Finance and The Romanian Central Bank, The Romanian Central Bank ignored the reports and release $3.6 million U.S. in payment of the non-delivered equipment. The $3.6 million was paid to the Bank of DiNapoli, Italy. (Note: The Banco Di Napoli who had more than $1 billion in “bad loans” was later closed by the Italians. Assets were bought by Banco di Roma. To uncover the scheme, the Banco di Roma was taken to court in Canada. During cross-examination, the Financing Project Manager of former Banco Di Napoli, Luxembourg testified that based on non-credible documents, no money should have been released from The Central Bank to Banco Di Napoli in payment of the non-delivered equipment. Also sighted was the agreed system of document verification had not been followed. Two signatures were always required prior to release of funds. The principal of the Darianne Program was to sign as well as a Commercial Officer in the Italian Embassy in Bucharest, Romania. This procedure had been followed for each prior equipment delivery. Without both signatures, The Central Bank of Romania was not to pay for any equipment.)
Immediately after The Central Bank released the money, they then took $22 million U.S. worth of projects from The Darianne Program and transferred them to a company called SYBCO. This was done despite lack of approval from the owner of Darianne and used as a method to silence his protests. (Note: The owner of SYBCO was the former Chief of The National Organization of Young Communists under Ceausescu.)
Shortly thereafter, as clearly documented in the press $12 million U.S. was cashed out of the SYBCO program exactly as it had been done in The Darianne Program for Agriculture. To this day, the criminal file against SYBCO has never come to trial in Romania. Where did the $3.6 million and the $12 million U.S. go that was cashed out of these programs?
To silence the Canadian owner of Darianne, The Central Bank directed Credit Bank and Dacia Felix bank to file a lawsuit against him personally for mismanagement and theft of the money from The Darianne Program.
Throughout this entire scenario, misuse of power became obvious. Eventually a trial took place in Romania in the defendant’s absence that clearly denied:
1. The defendant’s right to present witnesses or evidence in his defense.
2. The defendant’s right to present exculpatory accounting evidence.
3. The defendant’s right to adequate opportunity to test and challenge the evidence presented against him.
Also,
1. There were inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the accounting evidence presented by the plaintiff to which the defendant was not permitted to present evidence to show otherwise.
2. The amount of damages claimed was exorbitant and never substantiated.
3. The sitting Judge, Rodica Caragea was under penal investigation at the time of the trial. She was later convicted.
4. Proceedings were conducted in a manner contrary to Romanian written law.
5. The final decision in the case was obtained by fraud.
6. There was no connection to the owner personally and the amounts claimed by the Plaintiff.
In September 2007, 3 years after filing the case with the European Court of Human Rights, the owner of Darianne sent notification to the ECHR documenting a change of address. Astoundingly, a response came from The Court. It was a brief letter from a Clerk stating the following:
“A decision to disallow the case was taken on June 20, 2006.” (Note: this was the first notice ECHR had sent to the owner of Darianne - 17 months have the case was disallowed.) Attached to the brief letter was a non-dated, non-signed letter written by a clerk stating that the decision had been taken by 3 judges (one of whom was Romanian), that the case had been dismissed under the vague Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention. It stated that they found no violation of right and freedoms. Additionally, it stated that the file would be destroyed after one year and there would be no recourse for appeal.
Odd isn’t it. If the owner of Darianne had not notified the ECHR of a change of address, would he have been notified at all of the sham in the EU court?
There are obvious irregularities and oddities with this case handled by the European Court of Human Rights:
1. Neither the owner of Darianne or his lawyer was notified of the decision until the change of address notification - 17 months after a decision had been taken.
2. Despite all previous correspondence from The European Court of Human Rights having reached the Owner in a timely manner, this notification was not signed, dated nor sent by Registered Post.
3. Sitting on the committee of 3 rendering a decision to disallow this case from the ECHR was a Romanian Judge. Is this not partisanship. Seating this individual on a Committee to judge a volatile Romanian case clearly demonstrates a conflict of interest.
4. By the time the owner of Darianne was notified, the case files were destroyed by The Court allowing no review of the Court opinion.
5. Only reference to two vague articles 34 and 35 are sighted for the Committee’s decision.
6. The letter from the European Court of Human Rights stating disallowance of the case carries NO DATE and NO SIGNATURE.
7. During the time the facts of this case and ultimate results of this case were suppressed, Romania became a full member of the EU.
The only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from this is that if one is not permitted witnesses and documented defense in a trial, it appears that The European Court of Human Rights has regressed to the days of the French Revolution.
It appears that the ECHR has chosen in fact to push aside a case that clearly defies Human Rights to hide the extent and level of thievery and corruption in Romania. Was this case in fact too politically volatile to hear? Was it easier to push it aside and hope that it goes away?
It appears that the only recourse is to present documents and proof to anyone who will listen and to warn the North American business community of the dangers of investing business dollars in the European community, particularly Romania. There are neither laws nor courts big or small that are prepared to expose the extreme, high-level of corruption in Romania let alone to protect foreign investors.
Note: court cases registered in Canada (which are part of the public record) and Romania clearly document the above. All facts are supported by legal documents and testimony.
See the website: http://www.hawala.us
This book highlights on this website is based on a true story. As an editor I was privy to read first-hand the registered court cases supporting legal documentation and legal testimony registered in the Supreme Court of Canada as well as meet with the Canadian attorneys. Romania has worked hard to stifle this case among others because it clearly reveals high-level corruption. As an American I am astonished and dismayed that when the truth is so apparent that we can endorse a country that clearly is so corrupt.
Post a Comment