Published Release: 2018-08-18
USA, August 18, 2018.- A US federal judge has ordered an alleged hacker to pay the equivalent of US $ 750,000 in cryptocurrencies for release on bail. The man was accused of hacking the video game company Electronic Arts (EA), obtaining the game currency that was used to buy and sell items, and selling access to online games via websites of the black market.
Federal Judge Jacqueline Corley has ordered the hacker, "accused of illegally accessing the computer network of a San Francisco Bay Area company," to place bail in cryptocurrencies, the Ministry of Justice announced. of the United States (DOJ).
Martin Marsich, 25 years old, of Serbian and Italian nationality, whose last known place of residence was in Udine, Italy, was arrested at the International Airport of San Francisco on 8 August while boarding a flight to Serbia. In the San Francisco Federal Court, where he made his first appearance one day after his arrest, the DOJ described:
Corley, the judge at first instance, ordered Marsich to release bail on condition that he would pay the equivalent up to $ 750,000 in cryptocurrencies. "
Last November, Judge Corley appeared regularly in the news due to the ruling in favor of the Internal Revenue Service of the United States (IRS) against Coinbase, and ordered the exchange of cryptography to provide information on US taxpayers who conducted digital currency transactions. in the years 2013 to 2015.
The case and the complaint to the FBI
On 25 March, an agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) filed an affidavit with regard to the criminal charges against Marsich, which states that "a video game company located in the San Francisco Bay Area discovered that a person had illegal access to his internal computer network and had granted access to parts of the company's systems," the report said. Justice. "The intruder, later identified as Marsich, gained access to 25,000 accounts that allow customers to purchase items to use in video games. "
In addition, the FBI reports that" Marsich reportedly uses some of the information he obtains from the computer system to obtain game chips to buy and sell items of the same ". He was also accused of selling "access to online gambling on black market websites."
According to the Daily Post, the gambling company in the San Francisco Bay Area referenced is Electronic Arts Inc. (EA), a well-known American video game company based in Redwood City, California
"After discovering the intrusion, the company reportedly closed the stolen accounts and suffered a loss of about USD 324,000," he revealed. DOJ, adding:
The complaint accuses Marsich of deliberate access to a protected computer without permission to obtain information for commercial gain and private financial gain … and to gain access to a protected computer to deceive something of value and "
Clarifying that" a complaint is limited to claiming that crimes have been committed ", the agency observed that" the suspect, if convicted, faces a criminal a maximum of five years imprisonment and a fine of $ 250,000 plus compensation, if applicable, for each violation. "
For the first time the court orders a payment in cryptocurrency
San Mateo County District, Steve Wagstaffe, was quoted by the Daily Post as stating that:" I had never heard anyone from prison would come through payment in cryptocurrencies in a court of law. "Although he acknowledges that digital currency is now being accepted by the federal court, he believes that" a digital currency bond could disappear in the Superior Court of San Mateo County. "
Although the announcement of the DOJ does not mention the reason for the bail in cryptography, assistant lawyer Abraham Simmons stated that "judges can order many types of deposits, including property owned by another person", the publication that was sent and cited with the description of:
The judge would order almost everything … It is really very wide … What the purpose is to let the suspect meet later on n summons. "
Simmons also stated that he was" certain "that if the value of the cryptocurrency fluctuated dramatically, each party could submit a motion to change the amount of the bond." I imagine that one of the parties would be the court warn of an extreme change in the value of the property, but that does not mean that the court would be involved in one way or another. "