Cloned Boy
Professional
- Messages
- 1,017
- Reaction score
- 787
- Points
- 113
JUSTICE, AMERICAN STYLE.
Famous carder Sergey Pavlovich talks to equally famous hacker and carder Vladislav Khorokhorin, nicknamed BadB, and American lawyer Igor Litvak about the American system of investigation, justice, and serving a sentence in prison if the case ends badly. How many hackers and carders did BadB rat out? A lot! And if you were in his place, you would most likely do the same, even though you don’t want to admit it to yourself.
Enjoy reading!
Contents:
What are we going to talk about in this interview?
Pavlovich:
Friends, hello! And now we have someone who is not usually named, yes, Vladik BadB Khorokhorin. And in this episode, we will talk to you about how carders leak each other, because Vladik probably leaked 250 people. Who, whom, when, where and why. It is not customary to talk about this topic openly, but almost all hackers have encountered this in their criminal cases, and especially representatives of the old school, like Vladik and I.
And especially those who managed to spend time behind bars and get off with a short sentence. Almost everyone leaked someone at some point and cooperated with the investigation. And we will analyze in this episode how to use information correctly, how to manage it, yes, what aces you have in your hands, up your sleeve, an ace. What kind of information is this and how it can affect your sentence. Let's talk to a lawyer, here is an American lawyer Igor Litvak, This will be my lawyer now, maybe it will be possible to resolve my American case.
Therefore, with the American lawyer Litvak we will talk about options for plea bargains. We will discuss possible scenarios for the development of events with and without plea bargains. We will also discuss the American legislative base using the example of the main character's case, here is Vladik BadB.
Vlad "BadB" Khorokhorin.
Carder:
Yes, guys, hi everyone! We haven't seen each other for almost a year. Well, basically, nothing has changed, well, maybe I've gotten a little better. But everything is fine, in general, today is a very interesting topic, I hope you will all benefit from it and good luck to everyone.
Anonymity of carders and history.
Pavlovich:
Let's go. Yes, it will come in handy in future criminal cases, God forbid. So, friends, the peculiarity of our old-school get-together of Russian carders was that everyone knew each other. And in 2010, when Vladik was arrested in Nice, France, there was no talk of any anonymity at all.
We often met each other there and with other carders. Vladik often drove brazenly around Moscow in his brand new Tesla and only a blind person did not understand that Khorokhorin was robbing the USA. American intelligence agencies approach the investigation thoroughly and begin to detain only when they have a lot of evidence against you and such evidence is preferably weighty. And this means that someone had to testify against him and someone who knew him well.
Yes.
Who testified against Khorokhorin?
Carder:
Well, in fact, it all started, the story began in such a way that they accepted a person with whom I worked directly, I already said, Alexander Suvorov, Suvorov was there in America and could testify against me, although he personally did not see me in principle, so Suvorov was accepted in Germany in America, he actually did not sit there for very long, but that is his story.
Pavlovich:
5 years, I think?
Carder:
Yes, there are at least 3 or he was accepted, one of the first and the second person who was accepted was Gucci. We kind of knew Gucci a little better and he could also testify against me on RBS, that's where it all started, well, besides that, there was the story with the data from Seryozha's laptop, that data was also for the year 2003 and that data was also in the investigation materials and they were also used against me.
Pavlovich:
But at the same time, I didn't give up.
Carder:
Now maybe Igor will introduce himself and tell you too.
Pavlovich:
What did he say about his merits and everything else. Go ahead. Igor, please love and favor Igor Litvak, American lawyer.
Igor Litvak is an American lawyer.
Lawyer:
Yes, hello, it's nice to talk to you. As you already said, Igor Litvak, a lawyer. In general, I am from Russia by birth, I was born in the city of Vorkuta. In 1979, I am 41 years old, and I came to America in 1993. In the States, I graduated from school, as you know, high school. I graduated from college here, I graduated from two universities here in law, I have a master's degree in jury trials and also a doctor of law, and for 10 years I have been practicing criminal law, in general, I started in the prosecutor's office, I began my kind of criminal practice in the prosecutor's office, where I did an internship for almost half a year, I worked in the department that investigated the medical industry in the state of New York, New Jersey.
And we were engaged in very large-scale fraud there, which hospitals in this state were engaged in, doctors, took away their licenses. And I worked there until I finished my studies, received a lawyer's license, and my first job in Manhattan was at the Portella Law Firm. This is a firm that deals exclusively with criminal law.
I worked there for a couple of years, gained a lot of experience in this area, both at the federal level and at the state level, and then, after working there for a couple of years, in 2014 I opened my own firm, Litvak Law Firm, and over the past 6 years I have been representing clients, people all over the United States in major criminal cases.
These include cybercrimes, drugs, money laundering, financial fraud, I even had murders, you name it. Well, of course, what I am most famous for, if I can say so, more than anything else, is cyber.
Over the past six years, I have represented a lot of guys from the CIS who are facing charges under these articles, again, everywhere possible, in California, in Washington, in DC, in Virginia, wherever you want. And, of course, I have gained a lot of experience in this area. I have worked both on major cases myself and with other lawyers, we coordinated and coordinated.
Clarification:
The term "lawyer" does not exist, Igor has simply lived in America for a very long time and is already forgetting Russian
They meant an American lawyer.
Carder:
But you hacked in school, didn't you? Starting in college, you hacked schoolgirls and classmates yourself. You said you had experience .
Lawyer:
No, that didn't happen. There was no such criminal hacking.
Carder:
That you didn't even hack your classmates' e-mail? I won't believe it.
Lawyer:
You know, when I graduated from high school in Russia, there was no e-mail back then. Only when I went to college in the States, it was 1997, only then did this whole system of e-mail and computer labs slowly develop. Before that, if I wanted to, I probably wouldn't be able to. There just wasn't the opportunity.
Carder:
But could I do it now?
Lawyer:
I don't know now. Maybe, but I wouldn't do it and I don't advise anyone to.
The BadB case.
Pavlovich:
I see. I get it. So, now today BadB is ready to tell the details and, moreover, name names. Our carder will also tell you about whom he himself leaked in exchange for freedom. Let's talk about the ethical and purely human side of the issue. We'll find out the opinion of lawyer Igor Litvak about the BadB case, analyze the mistakes in behavior, analyze the defense strategy using Vladik as an example, talk about deals with the investigation and deal options and, accordingly, the development of events.
Look, Vladik, in your case, in Johnny's case, he got there, I think, he got 5 years according to the court, he served even less. And for example, these Belarusian judges, the cops, justify me for giving me 10 years for murder, there in Belka they give 6-7 years, I saw such cases, they kind of said that I would have faced two life sentences there in the States, let him kind of thank us, but using the example of the same Johnny Hell, Suvorov and other guys, I see that in reality, according to my articles, in the States they got from 2 to 7 years, 5-7 years, only Drinkman, our mutual friend, got 12, well, and Seleznev got 27, because he refused and so on. In your opinion, how much would I, you know approximately the range of my actions there, it was less than yours, and both in terms of damages and everything else, how much would I get in the States?
How many years would Sergei Pavlovich get in the USA?
Carder:
Well, first of all, Seleznev, yes, he didn't refuse. That was the biggest stupidity. Yes, if Drinkman is there, he has a completely different story, yes. That is, Seleznev didn't refuse. First, he started cooperating, gave in, then wanted to rat someone out, then didn't want to. Then he started dragging out time, ruining their trial, drinking blood, on the advice of his dad. Well, in the end, in general, it turned out that they were all angry at him and, well, they gave him 27 years. You would have received, but I don't know, personally in my opinion 5-7 years, that is, well, approximately in terms of sales volumes and in terms of the volume of crimes committed, yes, but 5-7 years, so instead of sitting in Belarus, you should have gone abroad more often and then you could have gotten everything. Igor, how many years he could have received, you roughly know his situation, how many he could have received in America if he had cooperated or, for example, if he had refused.
Pavlovich:
My total damages were $36 million.
Lawyer:
$36 million is a very high sum. In general, sentences, you have to understand how sentences work in America. Each article that a person is accused of or found guilty of, each article has a minimum sentence and a maximum sentence. Usually it is from zero to some maximum, like 10, 20, or 30 years. Usually. So, there are some articles that have a mandatory minimum, that is, where the judge is, there is a minimum, the shortest term, which can be, let's say, 10 years.
Therefore, most guys do not have a minimum. And when they take some kind of deal in court, they take this deal for a certain article. This article, as I already said, has a minimum term, there is a maximum term. And now for justice, for the judge, for the prosecutor who will recommend a certain term, you need to understand where in this range, what term he will give you, or the judge, or the recommended term from the prosecutor's office.
And so in order to understand this recommended term, you need to look at different factors. Some factors are the amount of damage. If, let's say, you have an article where the maximum term is 20 years, and the minimum is zero, but you only stole a thousand dollars, the judge will give you probation, that is, he will give you, he will let you go, there will be no prison at all. So you need to look at other factors.
If what is the amount of damage, how many victims there were, if the person was a leader in this group, I mean as a defendant, or was not a leader,
Carder:
Igor, well, let me tell you a little about Seryozha, he created his own forum, also sold dumps, a lot of episodes, millions of dumps, that is, well, everything is like big sellers. Here's how much he would have actually received if he had cooperated, how much he would have actually received, that is, if he had cooperated, handed over his records, those on the computer, and how much he would have actually received if he had simply
kept silent yes, that is, he does not say anything bad nothing good he just simply keeps silent yes that's it.
Lawyer:
How much I'm also actually interested in, I'll tell you in my personal opinion if he had cooperated, maybe gave his computer, not necessarily who he would have leaked, some people, but he simply cooperated, did not leak anyone, gave the computer, confessed and went for a deal so I think somewhere in the region of 5 to 10 years, but if he began to actively cooperate, in fact his cooperation led
to arrests, to indictment, and let's say his cooperation allowed the prosecutor's office to connect a nickname with a real name or, let's say, stop some hack that is currently underway. I think somewhere between two and four. In general, I'll tell you that in my practice over the past six years, no one who cooperated, for me personally, for my clients, no one who cooperated received more than five years.
Roman Seleznev's case.
Carder:
And Seleznev?
Lawyer:
Seleznev did not cooperate, he sent people to a jury trial. He lost the jury trial on all counts, and when he lost the jury trial, he hired me to help him somehow, to try to help him. I tried to help him, but by that time it was too late, because by that time he had already fought for three years, said that he was innocent, went to a jury trial, lost it.
And that is why I do not want to go into details of what I did for him. There are publics, as it were, on the Internet, we talked about this, that there was some kind of cooperation there. I cannot discuss this cooperation, I cannot talk about the details. The only thing I can say is that this cooperation did not lead to anything. As you know, even the judge said during the sentencing that we will not count this cooperation, there was nothing significant there.
And that is why he was given 27 years. By the way, he faced much more. He was facing 45, if I'm not mistaken, it was a long time ago, about 45 years. Probation recommended 35, the prosecutor's office asked for 35, but he was given 27.
Strategy of behavior in an American court.
Pavlovich:
Look, if I understand correctly, I'm just telling my viewers, readers, and so on that here in Belarus, in Russia, in the post-Soviet space, the cops, the investigators themselves, the prosecutors, the judges, really don't like it when you behave like a prostitute. When arrested, you said one thing, during the investigation another, in court you have a third version. That is, they like it when you have one version and you stick to it.
Either you admit or deny, but they don't like prostitutes. And apparently, in the situation with the psycho Seleznev in America, the same thing happened, that is, you either have to deny or confess, that's the way it is, you shouldn't behave like that.
Lawyer:
You know, this is a very interesting question, because when I started practicing in this area, doing big federal cases in the States, at first they also told me, you know, if a person wants to cooperate, you need to immediately fall, reveal everything, reveal all your cards, give the computer, and then everything will be fine for you, you will make friends and everything will be cool.
And there are criminal cases where this should be so, there are cases where this is exactly the strategy, it is correct. But there are also many situations when, upon arrest, immediately revealing everything and giving it away can only lead to the worst. In general, changing the strategy, there is nothing terrible about it. If when you are arrested, you tell people that they are guilty, and then, when after 2 months you received the entire database, evidence against you, you looked at it and realized that you are screwed, then you can start cooperating after that.
And maybe you wouldn't get such a huge loan if you started cooperating right away, but no one will hold it against you that you first said they were guilty and then said you were guilty. People understand that when someone is arrested, they are afraid, they don't know what's going on. So people can lie.
So I don't see anything terrible in that, that if you said you were innocent at first, and then had a falling out with a lawyer, looked at the evidence against you, and then decided, you know, I won't win a jury trial here, I'd better cooperate, and then go to the prosecutor's office or the FBI or the secret service with this. There's nothing terrible in that. Jury
trials in the US.
Pavlovich:
But jury trials are a total pain in the ass, right, in the US?
Lawyer:
No, why? You know, there is such a myth, I don’t know, that many of our immigrants from the CIS told me that a jury trial is absolutely impossible to win. This is not true, this is absolutely not true, I have a separate education, I studied for a year specifically at a very prestigious university in Philadelphia, there at the university where I received a master’s degree in this very topic, exclusively in jury trials. And I do them. They can be won.
But before you decide whether you should go to a jury trial or not, look at the database that the prosecutor’s office has. Look at what evidence they have on you. You have the right to do this according to the Constitution. You should not immediately decide after your arrest what you are doing. You will cooperate and go to a jury trial. Most of the guys, I will tell you honestly, most of the guys who are arrested, especially those who are extradited, they are very often arrested with computers.
In this case, when you were arrested with your work computers, when everything is there, it's all there, all your work, all the cards, everything else, and you know that they will see it all, then you understand, okay, in this case, maybe a jury trial is not the best for you, as it were, as a plan of action, well, in general, my advice is always, if you are arrested and you are not sure that the prosecutor's office is against you, contact a lawyer who is handling these cases, talk to him, explain that he was doing something, it's all kind of confidential, the lawyer has no right to tell anyone this, and then together you build a strategy, so this is my advice.
BadB: "I had a position like Seleznev: Russia will help us."
Carder:
That is, that is, it is generally a myth that American lawyers work closely with American intelligence agencies, for example, just when I, yes, when, that is, for me it was completely wild. I'll tell my story a little, I was arrested, that is, in 2010, a year and a half, that is.
So, I was put in jail, I spent almost a year in solitary confinement. I knew nothing at all. I only wrote letters. Yes, in France. I wrote letters in solitary confinement. And then it happened through the European Court of Human Rights. They didn’t plan at all that I should be released from solitary confinement before extradition. But it turned out that they released me through the European Court, I ended up in a general regime. In the general regime, I very quickly found a mobile phone for myself.
Through this mobile phone, the most interesting thing is that I warned both those people with whom I worked, at that time I warned the psycho, and his friends, and other guys who were Drinkman’s partners, yes, that is, I told everyone, guys, they accepted me, I don’t know what to do, but at that moment I was just driving the Americans away, I said, I’m refusing, the Americans, that is, I had the position of Seleznev, Russia will help us, we will defeat everyone, a wizard will arrive in a blue helicopter and take me away, that’s the kind of conversation we had.
And I really did talk like that, there were constant raids, they tried to find my mobile phone, the Americans were indignant there, but in the end they never found anything, they even tried to transfer me to another prison, but the French were on my side, well, it's a long story.
Lawyer Arkady Bukh.
Carder:
But until the very end, before I started talking to Bukh, I had a strong opinion that I was flying to America, I was flying for a long time, and I would not rat anyone out. I had an episode when they described my computer, sent it to America, I tried to grab it and smash it, in short, they restored the data, the French gave me a pretty good beating.
But in essence, I always had such a clear Russian refusal. Until I started communicating with Bukh. And when Bukh started simply requesting my case and slowly started uploading evidence, I understand where I'm going, what's going on. There is a specific person sitting there who will now start testifying against me, that is, he is ready, Johnny. They kept him on purpose until they fully understood that cooperation.
"A hare came out onto the porch..."
Carder:
They couldn't open my computer, the most interesting thing is, well, this basically became the main factor that made them cooperate with me, well, this was my trump card, yes, that is, they didn't know, they were buying a pig in a poke, well, the crypto was big, the password was complex, and they just couldn't open it, and so they decided that everyone had gathered there, almost like an attorny
, there were a lot of people, there was some CIA agent there, who was generally in a mask, well, it was just such a circus tent, well, we'll talk a little, probably, if there is time for it, yes, well, a lot of people had gathered there and they all exhaled, yes, when I started talking to them, laughing, yes, and I, I remember how they all just raised their hands and said, Boom, I actually had a password from the crypto from my, yes, I think they already told me no, I don't know, I generally use complex passwords, I use children's ones poems and I had a poem a hare came out onto the porch to scratch his egg and that's what with the wrong punctuation and just when well I tell them the password that is, they didn't ask to write it on a piece of paper, underline the capital letters they say what does it mean I translate for them and the translator himself laughs also translates for them yes that is, at the same time I speak and the translator they all start laughing and then bam the tension subsides and here comes this woman, like her
Kimberly Peretti or whatever in short in general all these bigwigs were there when everyone started laughing I already realized that they all exhaled yes well the heat went into the hut they called somewhere they already tried to connect this news this password to the image of my disk they entered the password it worked and they exhaled, they already started bringing me coffee, hamburgers, there and everything else, there the communication was already in such a free format, and I really started to eat well, at least they transferred me, I was in DC.
Jail, in a black prison, yes, there, well, actually, by the way, it's better with blacks, yes, than to sit with whites, I'll tell you honestly, yes, but for some reason they transferred me from these blacks to Rapahannock, I remember, it's in Virginia, well, and they thought that these were better conditions, I didn't think that these were better conditions, it was better for me in DCJL, I immediately got high on the second day, so that's how it is here, but they thought that cooperation had begun and that is, we were already sort of taking care of him and helping him.
Pavlovich:
He told us a lot and then lied to us again, he says I had in the phrase a hare came out onto the porch to scratch his egg, he says I had the wrong punctuation in that phrase. There was a comma before scratch his egg, but in fact there wasn't one. Oh, he's already become a seasoned veteran. Last time I caught him in a lie many times, but this time I couldn't. Here you need a counter, you know, beep-beep-beep-beep.
Lawyer:
You know, Vlad, you said something interesting at the beginning. You said that there is a myth that lawyers cooperate very directly with the masters.
Do lawyers work with the secret services?
Carder:
Yeah, so, excuse me, I was afraid that Bukh, I always thought that Bukh was an American undercover agent and that he was quietly snitching on me, well, in fact, at the initial stage, his guy Klopov contacted me, I said, we need to put pressure on such Klopovs, and, in general, I always thought that Bukh, I called him everything, a prostitute, there, and everything I didn’t call him, in fact, he helped me a lot, I am very grateful and thankful to Bukh, well, but... What was the key thing he helped you with?
He helped me, he simply controlled my temperament. He controlled my temperament. He really... Well, I would have ended up like Seleznev. That is, I would have arrived there, I would have been rushing around, I wouldn’t have known. And Bukh was constantly saying, wait. Lyat-lyat. He’s also a Jew. He says, lyat-lyat. He says, wait, we'll fix everything now. Everything's fine. He kept calling the agents. They were also spitting there. They say he's nuts. I was trying to dodge it there. We'll get back to that now, too.
Pavlovich:
What's lyat-lyat?
Carder:
Lyat-lyat is quietly in Hebrew. That is, when they show it like this.
Lawyer:
Look, no lawyer, no one, neither God, nor me, no normal lawyer has the right to do what you thought, does not have the right to cooperate with the authorities. If he does this, not only can he lose his license, he can also be sued by the client for a lot of money, and potentially, depending on what happens, he can earn himself a criminal case.
So no lawyer will do this. But I want to say a couple of things on this topic. Lawyers cooperate with the authorities if the client needs it. If a client comes to you and says, listen, I want to cooperate, I will not fight. And this happens very often, not always, but it happens. And the client says, I want you to be friends with them. You need to be friends with them, you need to work closely with them.
I want to tell you one thing, I've gotten to know them so well over the last five years, I know so many FBI and Secret Service agents, a year and a half ago they had a huge Secret Service press conference, huge in Manhattan, it was November of 2019, I was the only lawyer in all of America, the only one they invited to that conference.
Carder:
They were sniffing in the toilets, weren't they?
Lawyer:
No, no, stop it.
Carder:
Ask him what his rank is. His address... He says that a lawyer has a clear conscience, he says.
Lawyer:
Well, well, listen, listen. Listen, I'll even show you, I have a...
Carder:
Badge.
Lawyer:
Go to that conference when I was invited. I was the only lawyer there who wasn't invited. And I gave a little speech there, and there was even one secret employee there. He says, listen, man, I see you so often, are you working for us already? I mean, you see, when it's necessary, when a client asks you, when a client wants to cooperate, you do it.
But when a client says, and I had this, and it happens, when a client says, I'm fighting, I'm not guilty. By the way, I had one case, we'll talk about it later, about drugs. When a client says, I'm not guilty, then the lawyer switches over and you have a total war.
Lawyer ethics.
Carder:
Listen, but there are such cases, Igor, there are such cases, yes, when a lawyer needs to be informed, yes, I know for sure, I know for sure at least two in American justice, when something threatens my life or when I threaten someone's life.I mean, let's say I come to you and say, I'm hitting this nigga and you have to go and tell me if it's true or not at all, tell me if it's true or not, or I say, let's say the guy just gave me a hard time, I'm tired of everything, I want to hang myself, in short, you have to say it or not This is also an interesting aspect, I just wanted to know that it's not just you, it's any American lawyer, right? So I wanted you to confirm and tell me a little bit about that too.
Lawyer:
So, look, there are laws in America, they are local, they are state-owned, as we speak. There is no such federal law on the ethics of jurisprudence that something must be done. Therefore, each state has a different attitude. In New York, if you come, if a client comes to me and says: "Listen, I want to go and kill Petya," then I have to go and do something to prevent this crime.
Carder:
But you can’t prevent this crime in prison yourself, you have to report it, right? Not you specifically, but the lawyer who is defending this person.
Lawyer:
Yes, there are ways to do this, there is a way to do it in such a way as not to leak your client. You can do it anonymously, there are different options, but in principle, in a global sense, if a client wants to kill someone, and he tells you about it, you have to take some action to prevent it from happening.
Carder:
Igor, tell me one more thing, I saw it with my own eyes, not in Rapahanok with me, I don’t remember what it’s called. Nordernek, that’s some kind of asshole of the world, I don’t remember what state it’s in. That’s Virginia. Nordernek, you know where that is. .
Lawyer:
I have a client sitting there. I just have a client sitting there.
Igor Litvak: “If you have money, you can organize a lot of things in prison.”
Carder:
Well, there’s still a normal place there. That’s where the drug lord was sitting with me. A real drug lord. That is, the drug lord really was from Mexico. And his lawyer came to him. And this lawyer hired a girl as his paralegal, that is, he hired a girl as an assistant. A girl who, well, that is, she’s American, and she came.
That is, Bukh came to me, and a young girl came to him and they really, that is, gave us a separate room, well, there were just no doors, one big door, and at the same time this girl sucked him off. I really, I swear to you, she sucked him off there. I always tell Booze, here I am, saying I have an American girl. I say, do it, I need paralegals. He justified me. And he says, tell me, do you have any acquaintances? He says, honestly. We got you used to lifefed twice as much back then.
Lawyer:
Forgive me, I can’t imagine such services.
Carder:
No, you yourself understand what you’re saying, paralegals are possible.
Lawyer:
That’s what I’m talking about, that I have a team, I don’t work alone, I have paralegals, I have assistants.
Carder:
Show me a photo. So put the photos on the site right away. Demand for you will immediately rise.
Lawyer:
Oh, guys, guys. You’re giving it. By the way, such a... I just wanted to say that, by the way, I haven’t heard of such a thing.
Carder:
I saw it with my own eyes.
Lawyer:
But I believe. I believe, I believe. I’m just saying that I personally haven’t heard of such a thing. Well, this shows that anything can happen, there are underground phones in prisons, and there are plenty of drugs, and anything you like. If you have money, and you have already received a sentence, and you have been transferred from a pretrial detention center to a permanent residence to serve out your sentence, and if there is not maximum security there, but average or minimum security, with money
you can organize a lot of things there.
Does it make sense to go to a jury trial?
Pavlovich:
And tell me about the trial of those imprisoned, already finishing, when does it make sense to go to a trial of those imprisoned, that is, when there is no evidence against you at all, or very little, very little, then it makes sense to go to a trial of those imprisoned, or in America it is generally better not to take risks and generally always refuse a trial of those imprisoned.
What percentage of those imprisoned by court, is there some status, for example, thousands of departments per year in the state for those imprisoned by court, for example, how many of them end positively for the client, and how many with a guilty verdict?
Lawyer:
You know, unfortunately, statistically most jury trials end badly for the defendant. Most of the time, the prosecutor wins for certain reasons. But again, you shouldn't be afraid of a jury trial. And before you decide to go to a jury trial, first of all, If a person knows that he is innocent, then it is immediately clear that we are going to a jury trial.
If a person is innocent, this is true in the end, and with a normal lawyer it can be won in a jury trial. If a person may have done something, but he is not sure, maybe it is possible to win, maybe it is impossible to win, then before you decide, again, there is time, you should not do at the first appearance in court, what do you do. Cooperate and go to a jury trial. You have plenty of time to decide. In general, a federal case on average, the average, so to speak, a federal case takes two years to complete.
This includes cases that end through a jury trial or through cooperation. Therefore, a person has a lot of time to make this decision. But in general, if you are not sure whether to go or not, because you think that maybe you did something, but maybe it is not so scary. Look at the database, do an examination, understand what the prosecutor's office has, because again, according to American law and the constitution, before the start of the jury trial, the prosecutor's office is obliged to give you everything they have to the defense.
There are several categories of information, the first category of information.
Carder:
Yes, it's called Discovery.
Lawyer:
It's called Discovery, there are several categories of information. The first is what everyone knows, like criminal information, they must give you. But also the second category of information, this is called information that shows that you are innocent. That is, if the prosecutor's office has information that you are innocent, they are also obliged to give you this information. And therefore, when a person receives all this, you look at what's there. Again, sometimes there are cases where it’s not clear, 50/50. You might win, you might lose.
And then, in the end, it’s the client who makes the decision. I come to the client, we discuss it together, we look at what they have, what evidence and everything else. I tell the client all the pros, all the cons, and based on that, the person makes the decision.
If they admit guilt and don’t cooperate.
Carder:
Igor, tell me, please, I’ve always been interested in this question. If I hadn’t started cooperating with them, that is, if they extradited me to America. Let’s say I looked at all the charges and said, okay, fine, I’m guilty, but I don’t want to rat anyone out. I’m always wondering about my conscience. If I had gone down that path, how much do you think I would have gotten? You know my case well enough. I would have told you, I’m just keeping quiet.
I admit my guilt in court, that is, there is no need for a jury trial. I simply admit my guilt and that's it, yes, that is, but at the same time I am silent, I am not going to cooperate, how much would I get, what do you think, but you have already given the password, no, I have not given the password, yes, I would not give anything, I flew to America, I just say I'm plead guilty, yes, that is, I admit my guilt, yes, I am guilty, but at the same time I do not want to talk at all and
do not give the password and I do not give the password, yes, look, then if.
Lawyer:
You probably know about this situation when a person wants to admit his guilt without cooperation or with cooperation, but it doesn’t matter, he admits his guilt, he signs a document called PLEAGREEMENT, and in this PLEAGREEMENT there is an approximate calculation of what your term will be recommended by the Sentencing Guidelines, as if you remember
I said earlier that each article has a minimum and maximum term, and then there is a recommended term, so every year Congress issues or updates a kind of law called the United States Sentencing Guidelines. And in these Sentencing Guidelines there are all sorts of factors that I mentioned earlier, how much damage and everything else. And then based on this, the Total Offense Level is calculated. It is usually 31 points, 32 points or 33 points in cybers.
Carder:
But I was facing fifty-six years, fifty-six years was that term. Listen, listen.
Lawyer:
When, when a person, signing under make-up, simply accepts guilt without cooperation, but he accepts guilt, and he accepts it quickly, then, as a rule, three points are cut from you. These sentencing, United States Sentencing Guidelines, they take three points off you. Without anything.
Pavlovich:
Just imagine taking guilt.
Carder:
Yes, for damages like Seryozha's, they add ten.
Lawyer:
If you don't want to cooperate, just admit your guilt, not to screw anyone over, you will be given a discount, but it will be insignificant, completely insignificant, it can be a year or two, and if a person faces 56 years, like you, or 30 years, it doesn't make much of a difference, so in these cases, of course, it is better to cooperate actively.
Working with the case.
Pavlovich:
Yeah, imagine what he's pushing you to do, pushing you to snitch, in short. Well, okay, I get it, so, okay, so what's the solution we have, that when you come to America you are either completely innocent there and go to trial with those imprisoned and there it's a matter of luck, yes, or if you understand that the evidence against you is serious enough, then you admit guilt and start cooperating with them, well, in plain text, turning someone in, that's where Vladik is sitting.
Lawyer:
How does it usually work? I'll give you an average example. Someone calls me from London or Italy, like, I've been arrested, I was here on vacation, I came here to hang out, I was arrested for extradition to the USA. Very often I go to London or Italy or some other country and meet with the client in a pretrial detention center there, and we have a conversation there and understand where this case is going.
Sometimes there were even cases where if a person wants to cooperate, I call the prosecutor's office or an agent from America, and they come to Europe, or to the country where the person is, and cooperation begins there. Then, then, he extradites him, we have the first hearing, right after the extradition in court, it's usually not very long, nothing grandiose happens there, the person just says that he is innocent, and they give you some other hearings for the future, and before that, they give you a discovery hearing.
Types of cooperation (cooperation with authorities) and advice from Igor Litvak.
Lawyer:
And after that, if a person wants to continue cooperating, we organize meetings, start cooperating. Cooperation can be very different, it is like all cyber cases, there are bots, there is ransomware, there is carding, anything.
A person starts cooperating. In general, I will tell you, I am very often asked what kind of cooperation gives the most results, what kind of cooperation gives you the biggest discount on your potential term. I will say the following.
A person who was arrested, who has a nickname and who has a good reputation behind this nickname, he knows this nickname on forums, he is trusted, he has been in business for a long time, and people do not know that he was arrested, that is, he has a nickname, people do not know that he was arrested, he comes to America and begins to actively sit on forums, in chats and talk with other people with whom he used to work. This type of cooperation gives the greatest results.
Cooperation can be different, there is cooperation when you give one name, and it is still cooperation, and there is cooperation when you sit for four years three times a week, like a full-time job, from nine to five you sit on the forum with an agent next to you and talk to suspects.
Therefore, cooperation is very different, but in principle, as I already said, a person, a client always has a choice according to the constitution, according to the law, or a jury trial, or cooperation, or simply admitting guilt without cooperation, how to go according to the law and ethics, only the client chooses, a lawyer can only advise, and therefore when we meet and talk, he tells me everything, everything that happened. But it also depends on whether he was arrested with a computer or without a computer. We need to understand what is happening there. I have seen situations, seriously now, when people thought that they had arrested me, I would now, therefore, give everything, cooperate with them, give them the password, give them the computer, everything would be cool, I would go home.
And for certain reasons, he made things worse for himself. He made things worse for himself just by doing this. So again, my advice, I tell everyone this, I will always tell everyone, before doing anything, contact a lawyer so that he can advise you well.
How long should you wait for cooperation from the day of arrest?
Pavlovich:
Igor, and after how long on average, from the day of arrest to cooperation, how much time passes, in your experience, specifically in cybercrime cases?
Lawyer:
Again, it depends on the case. You must understand that sometimes, as I said earlier, starting to cooperate right away has certain big-big advantages. I'll explain why. Look, if a person is arrested, if he does not cooperate, he simply goes to fight, or does not cooperate right away, let's say, he will look at the database, understand what is happening there, then the fact of his arrest can be advertised.
And if it is advertised and all his colleagues, partners of this person knew that he was arrested, then a very large part of the cooperation may simply no longer exist. People will destroy evidence, destroy databases, they will disappear, move, let's say, stop leaving Russia or Ukraine, or something like that.
So again, there is no such thing as a universal rule. The first rule is to call a lawyer as soon as you are arrested and talk to him. And then look further. Again, there are many advantages when cooperating immediately leads to good results. As I said before, so consult with a lawyer and then decide.
But in principle, I will say honestly, Most, of course, cases, most cases, guys, those who want to cooperate, who decided to do it, they usually do it at the beginning, that is, they do it quickly right after the arrest. Usually there is nothing bad about it, but sometimes it ends badly.
Carders Dmitry Smilyanets and Vladimir Drinkman.
Pavlovich:
So what about Drinkman, Vova Drinkman, they denied his appeal today, he asked for a reduction in his sentence, he has 12 years, why? Why did he get 12 years, while the brave Smilyanets got 5 or 3 kopecks or something? I don’t even know.
Reference:
Dmitry Smilyanets (Smil, Smi), served 4 years in the USA.
Lawyer:
You know, Smilyanets and Drinkman are both my clients. And I am representing Drinkman now in this appeal that you just mentioned. By the way, we will now file for reconsideration. By the way, this was not an appeal, it was a petition to release him on the basis of his health. And the federal judge denied us now, and next week we are filing for, what is called, reconsideration.
But since these are both my clients, I cannot discuss the details, excuse me, why one got this, the other got that. I just, considering my position, I consider, legal, so to speak, confidentiality.
Carder:
Okay. One question. Do they have a conflict of interest?
Lawyer:
They have a conflict of interest, and they both veiled this conflict of interest. This is when both clients, if there is a conflict, they can say that there is a conflict, but I do not object. And they both signed a document that veiled this conflict, and thus I could represent both of them in the criminal case.
Pavlovich:
But why 12? Is 12 a lot in his case or a little?
Carder:
It seems to me that one was simply breaking, and the other was simply selling, so the one who was selling gets less. It's like the same thing with drugs. You know, one cooks, the other sells, so the one who cooks gets more, you understand?
Lawyer:
Again, I cannot comment on why one got more, one got less. The only thing I want to say is that we hope that Drinkman will be released soon. In fact, his health is not very good, I mean against the background of this coronavirus, he has certain conditions that increase the risk of coronavirus for him.
And that's why we're fighting now to get him out of prison. Let's see how it ends.
Coronavirus in American prisons.
Carder:
What's the situation with coronavirus in American prisons? Are people really sick there? I heard there's a total lockdown, no one's leaving. How is that even happening?
Advocate:
It's terrible, a terrible situation, terrible. There's a huge outbreak there where Drinkman is sitting, in that prison in quarantine. Half the inmates are in quarantine there now. I think one guard even died. And it's much worse in that prison now than it was in the summer. And that's why when we file for reconsideration for Drinkman, that's one of the things we'll bring up.
The situation in that prison has gotten much worse than it was a couple of months ago. It's the same in other prisons. In Brooklyn, in federal pretrial detention centers. It's terrible. Total lockdown.
Carder:
And even with this lockdown, people are getting sick through food, through these trays. Something is still spreading them. And I think that someone is deliberately trying to infect someone. Let's, yeah, spit on it, cough it up in his trade, like Tubikom, there's definitely something like that. Let's cough it up in the food, definitely.
Advocate:
Anything is possible, anything is possible, of course, but I will say that the situation is very dire, people are dying, people are becoming crippled. Some people who are in very poor health are even being released, that's what we're trying to do for Drinkman now.
Carder:
And what about Seleznev? He's really in poor health.
Advocate:
Seleznev too. I filed for Seleznev in the summer in July, I filed a similar petition for Roman. Similar. We filed it in the North Carolina court. And now we have a small trial going on there. And we are now waiting for the court's decision on Seleznev. We actually requested that he either be transferred to a hotel while the pandemic is going on, or that he be sent home.
And now we are waiting for the decision, I hope we will get it soon.
Is Drinkman's sentence normal in general?
Pavlovich:
Is 12 years a good sentence for Vova Drinkman or is it a long one or a normal one, considering what he did? In your opinion, it is clear that for him, it seems long to him, especially given that Smely received much less. But if you look at it objectively, yes, just from the outside, lawyers and so on, is this a normal term or is it a lot?
Lawyer:
You see, just so to speak, good or bad, you don’t understand what the person did and what this term is based on, and in order for me to tell you this, I will have to violate legal confidentiality, I don’t, but we know approximately, we know approximately.
Pavlovich:
What did he do, he did a lot right from my house, we were in Minsk, that is, I know his skill, so is this term normal or long, just say two words, normal, well, good, or.
Lawyer:
Bad, well, long, if the person did not cooperate, let’s say 12 years, forget about Danipan altogether, 12 years in cyber, if the person did not cooperate, he simply took the deal and did not cooperate, then this is a good term. Well, sort of average. Listen, but he got 15, Butler. You know, some people get more there, some less, but it’s somewhere in this area.
If a person does not cooperate, there are big losses. If a person cooperates, if a person cooperates, To get 12 years, even 7 years in the case of Vlad Khorokhorin, in my opinion, this is a very long term, seriously.
Carder:
A long term?
Igor Litvak: "In my cases, no one got more than 5 years."
Lawyer:
Would you have done less? Yes, yes. I don't know, I can't say that I would have done less or more. I'll just say that in my cases, where I worked, I never had a person who cooperated, who were arrested, they were threatened with 40-50 years too. I'm serious, no one got more than 5 years. But again, this is so, you see, I was not involved in your case. It's hard for me to fully say why your term was this or that.
But in general, in general, if a person cooperates, in general, 12 years from...
Carder:
I had it because I had... It's high. Igor, I'll tell you a little bit of my stories, yes. I had a hopeless prosecutor, yes. I mean, I had one who was normal, you know him, for sure, Ethan Armsen, right? I mean, he was normal, you can talk to him. And I had a second one, he's now, I think, Aus's deputy, Corbin Weiss. You definitely know that bastard too. So that bastard was always telling me, I'll drive you into the ground.
He, I mean, he was always against me. And only because all the agents were really trying to persuade me, well, really, both the booze and the agents. And I also had a very good judge. The judge was Heuvel, Ellen Sigal Heuvel. I mean, I was very lucky, she was quite liberal. And she says, she told me at the end of sentencing, she says, I can see that you're a very smart person, she says, use, she says, your knowledge, well, wisely, she says, I'm giving you a normal sentence, she says, and I, she says, want you, when you get out, she says, to remember what I told you, yeah.
But this Corbin Weiss, the bitch, he was always trying to screw me. He'd put me in a bad prison, you know, he put me in Fairfax, with these fucking rednecks, so that the moles would tear them apart, you know, this, then somewhere else, you know. Well, I was always doing some kind of nasty thing, specifically from this Weiss. Then he got this fucking Adams, the agent, the bitch, the stinking faggot, you know, and, well, he was always doing some kind of nasty thing to me.
And everything else went well for me, that's why I think it was 7 years. Well, you just don't know these people, if you want to comment.
Lawyer:
Look, I'm not arguing, I won't argue, maybe that's why you got such a sentence. But I'll tell you, and again, your main case was in the 2000s, if I'm not mistaken, or at the end of the 2000s.
Carder:
No, in general it was self-development already in 2011, 2012, 2013, so I had self-development. I was sentenced at the end, in the middle of 2012.
The case of carder Evgeny Nikulin.
Lawyer:
I get it, I get it, well, look, 7 years, I'll give you an example, Nikulin, Evgeny Nikulin, he recently went to a jury trial, he went to a jury trial, lost it on all counts, completely lost on all counts and received, I think, something like 88, something like that, he received the minimum, received a sentence similar to yours, and he lost the jury trial.
Carder:
His judge took pity on him, he has this face, you know, like he was beaten, like blacks screwed him, you know. Beaten him.
Lawyer:
No. If you want, I'll explain why he got such a short sentence.
Carder:
Why.
Lawyer:
I was involved in this case, too.
Cooperation and "discounts" on the sentence.
Lawyer:
Now this is a separate issue. I just want to say something else, that 7 years or 7.3 years now, this is considered high for cooperators. I have many examples where people who were arrested, who were threatened with 35 years, 40 years, 30 years, who were released 2 years, 3 years, 4 years, 5 years with good cooperation, with good positive cooperation, when you get 5k1, you know what 5k1 is, it is a letter that
the prosecutor's office sends to the court, where the prosecutor tells the judge that he gave us substantial cooperation, which was substantial assistance to us, based on this letter the judge can already formally, legally give a significant discount from the recommended term. But again, therefore people who cooperate well receive 5k1 or Rule 35, on average, if it is structured correctly, they receive from 2.
Carder:
Let me remind you of Rule 35, I have already forgotten, just refresh my memory because time has passed, I remember this something.
Lawyer:
I'll explain, most of the time people cooperate until the verdict, that is, you have a criminal case, so while it's going on you cooperate, and while this cooperation can take a year, it can take five years, it doesn't matter. And while this cooperation is going on, the case is kind of postponed, postponed, postponed. And then, when the cooperation is over, you go to the verdict. And before the verdict, you receive, if the prosecutor's office wanted it, in their opinion, you receive a letter 5k1, which is submitted to the court in secret, and based on this 5k1, the judge gives a discount during the verdict.
Sometimes there are cases, sometimes there are cases when a person cooperates after the verdict. Ah, that's it, I remembered. So, a person, let's say, came, I don't know, let's say, or did not cooperate, and because he thought he was cool, he gets a short sentence. He
got a sentence, it turned out to be long, he's like, wow, you know, I want to cooperate. And that's why there's a rule called Rule 35, which says, it says two things. A person has two ways to cooperate after a verdict. The first option. It has to be exactly within one year after the verdict.
If it's one day longer, it doesn't work. And it says the following, that within a year the prosecutor must file in court what's called Rule 35 motion, which says that after the verdict in that year he cooperated and gave us substantial assistance and that's why we want to give him, as it were, a cut in the term because at that moment there's already a verdict.
Like a retrial, right? Yes, it's like a retrial, it's like a moment to cut the term. Sometimes there are situations when more than a year passes. Let's say a person served 2 years after the verdict, and he wants to cooperate, there are different situations, what to do? Then in this case, in order for the prosecutor's office to get the Rule 35 motion, you must prove, well, like show or explain or argue with the prosecutor's office that the information you gave them, you received it only more than a year after the verdict.
Therefore, these are the two ways how you can cooperate after the verdict. Through Rule 35.
Pavlovich:
Yes. And what advantages does this give? Can they reduce the time?
Lawyer:
In general, I advise cooperating before the verdict and getting 5k1. But in general, there is a situation where this is impossible. We were recently in one state, by the way, in two States. There is such a concept, it's called Racket Ducky. By the way, you can go to Google, google it, there is even a Wikipedia page about it, what is Rocket Docket.
There are some courts in America, very few of them, somewhere around 5 or 6 courts, that say the following: you were arrested, you came to court, it was his first appearance, after the first appearance the court immediately pushes you to a jury trial. Either you go to a jury trial, or you accept guilt. That is, this court, it will not give you 2, 3, 4 years to cooperate and then go to sentencing.
It tells you, look, first appearance, you said you are innocent, we have a Rocket Docket district, we will not wait three years for you to cooperate, so now you decide whether you go to a jury trial or you accept guilt. When the court says something like that, the thing is that cooperation takes time. It does not usually happen in a month or two.
Cooperation, by the way, in order for it to be good, positive, takes a year or two on average. The court, which the enemies of the datkit in the district, it will not wait for you two years for you to uncooperate. Therefore, in these courts, what happens there is sort of the opposite, in ordinary courts you cooperate, then you go to the verdict, the term that you received, you serve it and go home.
In the courts, which Rocket Docket there are the opposite, you arrive, you almost immediately, if you cooperate, if you decided to cooperate, almost immediately accept your guilt. When you accept this guilt, you do not yet know if the cooperation will work out or not. Sometimes you know, but usually you do not, because it has not yet begun. You understand your guilt through pli and grimmin, you already understand what your approximate term will be for this pli and grimmin.
Then, after a month or two, you go to the verdict, you get a verdict that doesn't take into account your cooperation at all, and then when you have a verdict, you copy it from prison for 2, 3, 4, 5 years, and then when you've finished your cooperation, you go back to court and your verdict is cut.
Carder:
I don't have that. Well, in general, yes, it seems like they told me that I had this Rocket Docket, yes, what did they tell me right away, either you copy, yes, like don't bother us, either you copy, or you go straight to the trial, because we didn't want to hold Suvorov here, we have this, we have that. That's why it's like that.
Pavlovich:
If we translate it into Russian, it's like expedited proceedings. Expedited proceedings, yes.
"Rocket Docket" courts.
Lawyer:
Yes. That's how it is. And it's so inconvenient, you understand. The problem is that in the first version, as I said, in fact it's much better. Because when you cooperate in a traditional way, when you go to the verdict, when you go to the verdict, you also know approximately what the prosecutor's office will recommend, what you will get, what they will take into account for your cooperation. When you go through Rocket Docket, because the cooperation has not yet begun, you receive a sentence blindly.
You do not understand, okay, I just got 20 years, and now you have to hope that in 5 years they will file a 35 steering wheel for you there. Therefore, of course, it is always better to do it the traditional way through 5k1 to plow for 3-5 years or 2 years to go to the sentence. Sometimes it is impossible.
To be continued...
Pavlovich:
Here, guys, is such an issue, a continuation is definitely to be. I will leave a link to the site and Vladik's channel under the topic, be sure to subscribe in Telegram, because the things that he writes there and analyzes from the world of carding and in general in life in general, you will not find anything like this anywhere, I am sure. I also read there regularly. Write what you liked, didn't like, and your comments, questions. We will answer them. Hugs, thank you all for reading, bye!
Vlad's channel: https://t.me/cybersecs
Vlad's website: https://cybersec.org
Lawyer Litvak: https://nyccrimelawyer.com
Famous carder Sergey Pavlovich talks to equally famous hacker and carder Vladislav Khorokhorin, nicknamed BadB, and American lawyer Igor Litvak about the American system of investigation, justice, and serving a sentence in prison if the case ends badly. How many hackers and carders did BadB rat out? A lot! And if you were in his place, you would most likely do the same, even though you don’t want to admit it to yourself.
Enjoy reading!
Contents:
- What will we talk about in this interview?
- Vlad "BadB" Khorokhorin
- Anonymity of the Careers and History
- Who testified against Khorokhorin?
- Igor Litvak is an American lawyer.
- BadB Case
- How many years would Sergei Pavlovich have received in the USA?
- Roman Seleznev's case
- Strategy of behavior in the American court
- Jury trial in the USA
- BadB: “I had the same position as Seleznev: Russia will help us”
- Lawyer Arkady Bukh
- "The hare came out onto the porch..."
- Do lawyers work with intelligence agencies?
- Ethics of a lawyer
- Igor Litvak: "If you have money, you can organize a lot of things in prison"
- Does it make sense to go to a jury trial?
- If you admit guilt and do not cooperate
- Working with the case
- Types of cooperation (collaboration with authorities) and advice from Igor Litvak
- How long should we wait for cooperation from the day of arrest?
- Carders Dmitry Smilyanets and Vladimir Drinkman
- Coronavirus in American Prisons
- Is Drinkman's time frame generally normal?
- Igor Litvak: “In my cases, no one received more than 5 years”
- The case of carder Evgeny Nikulin
- Cooperation and "discounts" on the sentence
- "Rocket Docket" courts
- To be continued...
What are we going to talk about in this interview?
Pavlovich:
Friends, hello! And now we have someone who is not usually named, yes, Vladik BadB Khorokhorin. And in this episode, we will talk to you about how carders leak each other, because Vladik probably leaked 250 people. Who, whom, when, where and why. It is not customary to talk about this topic openly, but almost all hackers have encountered this in their criminal cases, and especially representatives of the old school, like Vladik and I.
And especially those who managed to spend time behind bars and get off with a short sentence. Almost everyone leaked someone at some point and cooperated with the investigation. And we will analyze in this episode how to use information correctly, how to manage it, yes, what aces you have in your hands, up your sleeve, an ace. What kind of information is this and how it can affect your sentence. Let's talk to a lawyer, here is an American lawyer Igor Litvak, This will be my lawyer now, maybe it will be possible to resolve my American case.
Therefore, with the American lawyer Litvak we will talk about options for plea bargains. We will discuss possible scenarios for the development of events with and without plea bargains. We will also discuss the American legislative base using the example of the main character's case, here is Vladik BadB.
Vlad "BadB" Khorokhorin.
Carder:
Yes, guys, hi everyone! We haven't seen each other for almost a year. Well, basically, nothing has changed, well, maybe I've gotten a little better. But everything is fine, in general, today is a very interesting topic, I hope you will all benefit from it and good luck to everyone.
Anonymity of carders and history.
Pavlovich:
Let's go. Yes, it will come in handy in future criminal cases, God forbid. So, friends, the peculiarity of our old-school get-together of Russian carders was that everyone knew each other. And in 2010, when Vladik was arrested in Nice, France, there was no talk of any anonymity at all.
We often met each other there and with other carders. Vladik often drove brazenly around Moscow in his brand new Tesla and only a blind person did not understand that Khorokhorin was robbing the USA. American intelligence agencies approach the investigation thoroughly and begin to detain only when they have a lot of evidence against you and such evidence is preferably weighty. And this means that someone had to testify against him and someone who knew him well.
Yes.
Who testified against Khorokhorin?
Carder:
Well, in fact, it all started, the story began in such a way that they accepted a person with whom I worked directly, I already said, Alexander Suvorov, Suvorov was there in America and could testify against me, although he personally did not see me in principle, so Suvorov was accepted in Germany in America, he actually did not sit there for very long, but that is his story.
Pavlovich:
5 years, I think?
Carder:
Yes, there are at least 3 or he was accepted, one of the first and the second person who was accepted was Gucci. We kind of knew Gucci a little better and he could also testify against me on RBS, that's where it all started, well, besides that, there was the story with the data from Seryozha's laptop, that data was also for the year 2003 and that data was also in the investigation materials and they were also used against me.
Pavlovich:
But at the same time, I didn't give up.
Carder:
Now maybe Igor will introduce himself and tell you too.
Pavlovich:
What did he say about his merits and everything else. Go ahead. Igor, please love and favor Igor Litvak, American lawyer.
Igor Litvak is an American lawyer.
Lawyer:
Yes, hello, it's nice to talk to you. As you already said, Igor Litvak, a lawyer. In general, I am from Russia by birth, I was born in the city of Vorkuta. In 1979, I am 41 years old, and I came to America in 1993. In the States, I graduated from school, as you know, high school. I graduated from college here, I graduated from two universities here in law, I have a master's degree in jury trials and also a doctor of law, and for 10 years I have been practicing criminal law, in general, I started in the prosecutor's office, I began my kind of criminal practice in the prosecutor's office, where I did an internship for almost half a year, I worked in the department that investigated the medical industry in the state of New York, New Jersey.
And we were engaged in very large-scale fraud there, which hospitals in this state were engaged in, doctors, took away their licenses. And I worked there until I finished my studies, received a lawyer's license, and my first job in Manhattan was at the Portella Law Firm. This is a firm that deals exclusively with criminal law.
I worked there for a couple of years, gained a lot of experience in this area, both at the federal level and at the state level, and then, after working there for a couple of years, in 2014 I opened my own firm, Litvak Law Firm, and over the past 6 years I have been representing clients, people all over the United States in major criminal cases.
These include cybercrimes, drugs, money laundering, financial fraud, I even had murders, you name it. Well, of course, what I am most famous for, if I can say so, more than anything else, is cyber.
Over the past six years, I have represented a lot of guys from the CIS who are facing charges under these articles, again, everywhere possible, in California, in Washington, in DC, in Virginia, wherever you want. And, of course, I have gained a lot of experience in this area. I have worked both on major cases myself and with other lawyers, we coordinated and coordinated.
Clarification:
The term "lawyer" does not exist, Igor has simply lived in America for a very long time and is already forgetting Russian
They meant an American lawyer.Carder:
But you hacked in school, didn't you? Starting in college, you hacked schoolgirls and classmates yourself. You said you had experience .
Lawyer:
No, that didn't happen. There was no such criminal hacking.
Carder:
That you didn't even hack your classmates' e-mail? I won't believe it.
Lawyer:
You know, when I graduated from high school in Russia, there was no e-mail back then. Only when I went to college in the States, it was 1997, only then did this whole system of e-mail and computer labs slowly develop. Before that, if I wanted to, I probably wouldn't be able to. There just wasn't the opportunity.
Carder:
But could I do it now?
Lawyer:
I don't know now. Maybe, but I wouldn't do it and I don't advise anyone to.
The BadB case.
Pavlovich:
I see. I get it. So, now today BadB is ready to tell the details and, moreover, name names. Our carder will also tell you about whom he himself leaked in exchange for freedom. Let's talk about the ethical and purely human side of the issue. We'll find out the opinion of lawyer Igor Litvak about the BadB case, analyze the mistakes in behavior, analyze the defense strategy using Vladik as an example, talk about deals with the investigation and deal options and, accordingly, the development of events.
Look, Vladik, in your case, in Johnny's case, he got there, I think, he got 5 years according to the court, he served even less. And for example, these Belarusian judges, the cops, justify me for giving me 10 years for murder, there in Belka they give 6-7 years, I saw such cases, they kind of said that I would have faced two life sentences there in the States, let him kind of thank us, but using the example of the same Johnny Hell, Suvorov and other guys, I see that in reality, according to my articles, in the States they got from 2 to 7 years, 5-7 years, only Drinkman, our mutual friend, got 12, well, and Seleznev got 27, because he refused and so on. In your opinion, how much would I, you know approximately the range of my actions there, it was less than yours, and both in terms of damages and everything else, how much would I get in the States?
How many years would Sergei Pavlovich get in the USA?
Carder:
Well, first of all, Seleznev, yes, he didn't refuse. That was the biggest stupidity. Yes, if Drinkman is there, he has a completely different story, yes. That is, Seleznev didn't refuse. First, he started cooperating, gave in, then wanted to rat someone out, then didn't want to. Then he started dragging out time, ruining their trial, drinking blood, on the advice of his dad. Well, in the end, in general, it turned out that they were all angry at him and, well, they gave him 27 years. You would have received, but I don't know, personally in my opinion 5-7 years, that is, well, approximately in terms of sales volumes and in terms of the volume of crimes committed, yes, but 5-7 years, so instead of sitting in Belarus, you should have gone abroad more often and then you could have gotten everything. Igor, how many years he could have received, you roughly know his situation, how many he could have received in America if he had cooperated or, for example, if he had refused.
Pavlovich:
My total damages were $36 million.
Lawyer:
$36 million is a very high sum. In general, sentences, you have to understand how sentences work in America. Each article that a person is accused of or found guilty of, each article has a minimum sentence and a maximum sentence. Usually it is from zero to some maximum, like 10, 20, or 30 years. Usually. So, there are some articles that have a mandatory minimum, that is, where the judge is, there is a minimum, the shortest term, which can be, let's say, 10 years.
Therefore, most guys do not have a minimum. And when they take some kind of deal in court, they take this deal for a certain article. This article, as I already said, has a minimum term, there is a maximum term. And now for justice, for the judge, for the prosecutor who will recommend a certain term, you need to understand where in this range, what term he will give you, or the judge, or the recommended term from the prosecutor's office.
And so in order to understand this recommended term, you need to look at different factors. Some factors are the amount of damage. If, let's say, you have an article where the maximum term is 20 years, and the minimum is zero, but you only stole a thousand dollars, the judge will give you probation, that is, he will give you, he will let you go, there will be no prison at all. So you need to look at other factors.
If what is the amount of damage, how many victims there were, if the person was a leader in this group, I mean as a defendant, or was not a leader,
Carder:
Igor, well, let me tell you a little about Seryozha, he created his own forum, also sold dumps, a lot of episodes, millions of dumps, that is, well, everything is like big sellers. Here's how much he would have actually received if he had cooperated, how much he would have actually received, that is, if he had cooperated, handed over his records, those on the computer, and how much he would have actually received if he had simply
kept silent yes, that is, he does not say anything bad nothing good he just simply keeps silent yes that's it.
Lawyer:
How much I'm also actually interested in, I'll tell you in my personal opinion if he had cooperated, maybe gave his computer, not necessarily who he would have leaked, some people, but he simply cooperated, did not leak anyone, gave the computer, confessed and went for a deal so I think somewhere in the region of 5 to 10 years, but if he began to actively cooperate, in fact his cooperation led
to arrests, to indictment, and let's say his cooperation allowed the prosecutor's office to connect a nickname with a real name or, let's say, stop some hack that is currently underway. I think somewhere between two and four. In general, I'll tell you that in my practice over the past six years, no one who cooperated, for me personally, for my clients, no one who cooperated received more than five years.
Roman Seleznev's case.
Carder:
And Seleznev?
Lawyer:
Seleznev did not cooperate, he sent people to a jury trial. He lost the jury trial on all counts, and when he lost the jury trial, he hired me to help him somehow, to try to help him. I tried to help him, but by that time it was too late, because by that time he had already fought for three years, said that he was innocent, went to a jury trial, lost it.
And that is why I do not want to go into details of what I did for him. There are publics, as it were, on the Internet, we talked about this, that there was some kind of cooperation there. I cannot discuss this cooperation, I cannot talk about the details. The only thing I can say is that this cooperation did not lead to anything. As you know, even the judge said during the sentencing that we will not count this cooperation, there was nothing significant there.
And that is why he was given 27 years. By the way, he faced much more. He was facing 45, if I'm not mistaken, it was a long time ago, about 45 years. Probation recommended 35, the prosecutor's office asked for 35, but he was given 27.
Strategy of behavior in an American court.
Pavlovich:
Look, if I understand correctly, I'm just telling my viewers, readers, and so on that here in Belarus, in Russia, in the post-Soviet space, the cops, the investigators themselves, the prosecutors, the judges, really don't like it when you behave like a prostitute. When arrested, you said one thing, during the investigation another, in court you have a third version. That is, they like it when you have one version and you stick to it.
Either you admit or deny, but they don't like prostitutes. And apparently, in the situation with the psycho Seleznev in America, the same thing happened, that is, you either have to deny or confess, that's the way it is, you shouldn't behave like that.
Lawyer:
You know, this is a very interesting question, because when I started practicing in this area, doing big federal cases in the States, at first they also told me, you know, if a person wants to cooperate, you need to immediately fall, reveal everything, reveal all your cards, give the computer, and then everything will be fine for you, you will make friends and everything will be cool.
And there are criminal cases where this should be so, there are cases where this is exactly the strategy, it is correct. But there are also many situations when, upon arrest, immediately revealing everything and giving it away can only lead to the worst. In general, changing the strategy, there is nothing terrible about it. If when you are arrested, you tell people that they are guilty, and then, when after 2 months you received the entire database, evidence against you, you looked at it and realized that you are screwed, then you can start cooperating after that.
And maybe you wouldn't get such a huge loan if you started cooperating right away, but no one will hold it against you that you first said they were guilty and then said you were guilty. People understand that when someone is arrested, they are afraid, they don't know what's going on. So people can lie.
So I don't see anything terrible in that, that if you said you were innocent at first, and then had a falling out with a lawyer, looked at the evidence against you, and then decided, you know, I won't win a jury trial here, I'd better cooperate, and then go to the prosecutor's office or the FBI or the secret service with this. There's nothing terrible in that. Jury
trials in the US.
Pavlovich:
But jury trials are a total pain in the ass, right, in the US?
Lawyer:
No, why? You know, there is such a myth, I don’t know, that many of our immigrants from the CIS told me that a jury trial is absolutely impossible to win. This is not true, this is absolutely not true, I have a separate education, I studied for a year specifically at a very prestigious university in Philadelphia, there at the university where I received a master’s degree in this very topic, exclusively in jury trials. And I do them. They can be won.
But before you decide whether you should go to a jury trial or not, look at the database that the prosecutor’s office has. Look at what evidence they have on you. You have the right to do this according to the Constitution. You should not immediately decide after your arrest what you are doing. You will cooperate and go to a jury trial. Most of the guys, I will tell you honestly, most of the guys who are arrested, especially those who are extradited, they are very often arrested with computers.
In this case, when you were arrested with your work computers, when everything is there, it's all there, all your work, all the cards, everything else, and you know that they will see it all, then you understand, okay, in this case, maybe a jury trial is not the best for you, as it were, as a plan of action, well, in general, my advice is always, if you are arrested and you are not sure that the prosecutor's office is against you, contact a lawyer who is handling these cases, talk to him, explain that he was doing something, it's all kind of confidential, the lawyer has no right to tell anyone this, and then together you build a strategy, so this is my advice.
BadB: "I had a position like Seleznev: Russia will help us."
Carder:
That is, that is, it is generally a myth that American lawyers work closely with American intelligence agencies, for example, just when I, yes, when, that is, for me it was completely wild. I'll tell my story a little, I was arrested, that is, in 2010, a year and a half, that is.
So, I was put in jail, I spent almost a year in solitary confinement. I knew nothing at all. I only wrote letters. Yes, in France. I wrote letters in solitary confinement. And then it happened through the European Court of Human Rights. They didn’t plan at all that I should be released from solitary confinement before extradition. But it turned out that they released me through the European Court, I ended up in a general regime. In the general regime, I very quickly found a mobile phone for myself.
Through this mobile phone, the most interesting thing is that I warned both those people with whom I worked, at that time I warned the psycho, and his friends, and other guys who were Drinkman’s partners, yes, that is, I told everyone, guys, they accepted me, I don’t know what to do, but at that moment I was just driving the Americans away, I said, I’m refusing, the Americans, that is, I had the position of Seleznev, Russia will help us, we will defeat everyone, a wizard will arrive in a blue helicopter and take me away, that’s the kind of conversation we had.
And I really did talk like that, there were constant raids, they tried to find my mobile phone, the Americans were indignant there, but in the end they never found anything, they even tried to transfer me to another prison, but the French were on my side, well, it's a long story.
Lawyer Arkady Bukh.
Carder:
But until the very end, before I started talking to Bukh, I had a strong opinion that I was flying to America, I was flying for a long time, and I would not rat anyone out. I had an episode when they described my computer, sent it to America, I tried to grab it and smash it, in short, they restored the data, the French gave me a pretty good beating.
But in essence, I always had such a clear Russian refusal. Until I started communicating with Bukh. And when Bukh started simply requesting my case and slowly started uploading evidence, I understand where I'm going, what's going on. There is a specific person sitting there who will now start testifying against me, that is, he is ready, Johnny. They kept him on purpose until they fully understood that cooperation.
"A hare came out onto the porch..."
Carder:
They couldn't open my computer, the most interesting thing is, well, this basically became the main factor that made them cooperate with me, well, this was my trump card, yes, that is, they didn't know, they were buying a pig in a poke, well, the crypto was big, the password was complex, and they just couldn't open it, and so they decided that everyone had gathered there, almost like an attorny
, there were a lot of people, there was some CIA agent there, who was generally in a mask, well, it was just such a circus tent, well, we'll talk a little, probably, if there is time for it, yes, well, a lot of people had gathered there and they all exhaled, yes, when I started talking to them, laughing, yes, and I, I remember how they all just raised their hands and said, Boom, I actually had a password from the crypto from my, yes, I think they already told me no, I don't know, I generally use complex passwords, I use children's ones poems and I had a poem a hare came out onto the porch to scratch his egg and that's what with the wrong punctuation and just when well I tell them the password that is, they didn't ask to write it on a piece of paper, underline the capital letters they say what does it mean I translate for them and the translator himself laughs also translates for them yes that is, at the same time I speak and the translator they all start laughing and then bam the tension subsides and here comes this woman, like her
Kimberly Peretti or whatever in short in general all these bigwigs were there when everyone started laughing I already realized that they all exhaled yes well the heat went into the hut they called somewhere they already tried to connect this news this password to the image of my disk they entered the password it worked and they exhaled, they already started bringing me coffee, hamburgers, there and everything else, there the communication was already in such a free format, and I really started to eat well, at least they transferred me, I was in DC.
Jail, in a black prison, yes, there, well, actually, by the way, it's better with blacks, yes, than to sit with whites, I'll tell you honestly, yes, but for some reason they transferred me from these blacks to Rapahannock, I remember, it's in Virginia, well, and they thought that these were better conditions, I didn't think that these were better conditions, it was better for me in DCJL, I immediately got high on the second day, so that's how it is here, but they thought that cooperation had begun and that is, we were already sort of taking care of him and helping him.
Pavlovich:
He told us a lot and then lied to us again, he says I had in the phrase a hare came out onto the porch to scratch his egg, he says I had the wrong punctuation in that phrase. There was a comma before scratch his egg, but in fact there wasn't one. Oh, he's already become a seasoned veteran. Last time I caught him in a lie many times, but this time I couldn't. Here you need a counter, you know, beep-beep-beep-beep.
Lawyer:
You know, Vlad, you said something interesting at the beginning. You said that there is a myth that lawyers cooperate very directly with the masters.
Do lawyers work with the secret services?
Carder:
Yeah, so, excuse me, I was afraid that Bukh, I always thought that Bukh was an American undercover agent and that he was quietly snitching on me, well, in fact, at the initial stage, his guy Klopov contacted me, I said, we need to put pressure on such Klopovs, and, in general, I always thought that Bukh, I called him everything, a prostitute, there, and everything I didn’t call him, in fact, he helped me a lot, I am very grateful and thankful to Bukh, well, but... What was the key thing he helped you with?
He helped me, he simply controlled my temperament. He controlled my temperament. He really... Well, I would have ended up like Seleznev. That is, I would have arrived there, I would have been rushing around, I wouldn’t have known. And Bukh was constantly saying, wait. Lyat-lyat. He’s also a Jew. He says, lyat-lyat. He says, wait, we'll fix everything now. Everything's fine. He kept calling the agents. They were also spitting there. They say he's nuts. I was trying to dodge it there. We'll get back to that now, too.
Pavlovich:
What's lyat-lyat?
Carder:
Lyat-lyat is quietly in Hebrew. That is, when they show it like this.
Lawyer:
Look, no lawyer, no one, neither God, nor me, no normal lawyer has the right to do what you thought, does not have the right to cooperate with the authorities. If he does this, not only can he lose his license, he can also be sued by the client for a lot of money, and potentially, depending on what happens, he can earn himself a criminal case.
So no lawyer will do this. But I want to say a couple of things on this topic. Lawyers cooperate with the authorities if the client needs it. If a client comes to you and says, listen, I want to cooperate, I will not fight. And this happens very often, not always, but it happens. And the client says, I want you to be friends with them. You need to be friends with them, you need to work closely with them.
I want to tell you one thing, I've gotten to know them so well over the last five years, I know so many FBI and Secret Service agents, a year and a half ago they had a huge Secret Service press conference, huge in Manhattan, it was November of 2019, I was the only lawyer in all of America, the only one they invited to that conference.
Carder:
They were sniffing in the toilets, weren't they?
Lawyer:
No, no, stop it.
Carder:
Ask him what his rank is. His address... He says that a lawyer has a clear conscience, he says.
Lawyer:
Well, well, listen, listen. Listen, I'll even show you, I have a...
Carder:
Badge.
Lawyer:
Go to that conference when I was invited. I was the only lawyer there who wasn't invited. And I gave a little speech there, and there was even one secret employee there. He says, listen, man, I see you so often, are you working for us already? I mean, you see, when it's necessary, when a client asks you, when a client wants to cooperate, you do it.
But when a client says, and I had this, and it happens, when a client says, I'm fighting, I'm not guilty. By the way, I had one case, we'll talk about it later, about drugs. When a client says, I'm not guilty, then the lawyer switches over and you have a total war.
Lawyer ethics.
Carder:
Listen, but there are such cases, Igor, there are such cases, yes, when a lawyer needs to be informed, yes, I know for sure, I know for sure at least two in American justice, when something threatens my life or when I threaten someone's life.I mean, let's say I come to you and say, I'm hitting this nigga and you have to go and tell me if it's true or not at all, tell me if it's true or not, or I say, let's say the guy just gave me a hard time, I'm tired of everything, I want to hang myself, in short, you have to say it or not This is also an interesting aspect, I just wanted to know that it's not just you, it's any American lawyer, right? So I wanted you to confirm and tell me a little bit about that too.
Lawyer:
So, look, there are laws in America, they are local, they are state-owned, as we speak. There is no such federal law on the ethics of jurisprudence that something must be done. Therefore, each state has a different attitude. In New York, if you come, if a client comes to me and says: "Listen, I want to go and kill Petya," then I have to go and do something to prevent this crime.
Carder:
But you can’t prevent this crime in prison yourself, you have to report it, right? Not you specifically, but the lawyer who is defending this person.
Lawyer:
Yes, there are ways to do this, there is a way to do it in such a way as not to leak your client. You can do it anonymously, there are different options, but in principle, in a global sense, if a client wants to kill someone, and he tells you about it, you have to take some action to prevent it from happening.
Carder:
Igor, tell me one more thing, I saw it with my own eyes, not in Rapahanok with me, I don’t remember what it’s called. Nordernek, that’s some kind of asshole of the world, I don’t remember what state it’s in. That’s Virginia. Nordernek, you know where that is. .
Lawyer:
I have a client sitting there. I just have a client sitting there.
Igor Litvak: “If you have money, you can organize a lot of things in prison.”
Carder:
Well, there’s still a normal place there. That’s where the drug lord was sitting with me. A real drug lord. That is, the drug lord really was from Mexico. And his lawyer came to him. And this lawyer hired a girl as his paralegal, that is, he hired a girl as an assistant. A girl who, well, that is, she’s American, and she came.
That is, Bukh came to me, and a young girl came to him and they really, that is, gave us a separate room, well, there were just no doors, one big door, and at the same time this girl sucked him off. I really, I swear to you, she sucked him off there. I always tell Booze, here I am, saying I have an American girl. I say, do it, I need paralegals. He justified me. And he says, tell me, do you have any acquaintances? He says, honestly. We got you used to lifefed twice as much back then.
Lawyer:
Forgive me, I can’t imagine such services.
Carder:
No, you yourself understand what you’re saying, paralegals are possible.
Lawyer:
That’s what I’m talking about, that I have a team, I don’t work alone, I have paralegals, I have assistants.
Carder:
Show me a photo. So put the photos on the site right away. Demand for you will immediately rise.
Lawyer:
Oh, guys, guys. You’re giving it. By the way, such a... I just wanted to say that, by the way, I haven’t heard of such a thing.
Carder:
I saw it with my own eyes.
Lawyer:
But I believe. I believe, I believe. I’m just saying that I personally haven’t heard of such a thing. Well, this shows that anything can happen, there are underground phones in prisons, and there are plenty of drugs, and anything you like. If you have money, and you have already received a sentence, and you have been transferred from a pretrial detention center to a permanent residence to serve out your sentence, and if there is not maximum security there, but average or minimum security, with money
you can organize a lot of things there.
Does it make sense to go to a jury trial?
Pavlovich:
And tell me about the trial of those imprisoned, already finishing, when does it make sense to go to a trial of those imprisoned, that is, when there is no evidence against you at all, or very little, very little, then it makes sense to go to a trial of those imprisoned, or in America it is generally better not to take risks and generally always refuse a trial of those imprisoned.
What percentage of those imprisoned by court, is there some status, for example, thousands of departments per year in the state for those imprisoned by court, for example, how many of them end positively for the client, and how many with a guilty verdict?
Lawyer:
You know, unfortunately, statistically most jury trials end badly for the defendant. Most of the time, the prosecutor wins for certain reasons. But again, you shouldn't be afraid of a jury trial. And before you decide to go to a jury trial, first of all, If a person knows that he is innocent, then it is immediately clear that we are going to a jury trial.
If a person is innocent, this is true in the end, and with a normal lawyer it can be won in a jury trial. If a person may have done something, but he is not sure, maybe it is possible to win, maybe it is impossible to win, then before you decide, again, there is time, you should not do at the first appearance in court, what do you do. Cooperate and go to a jury trial. You have plenty of time to decide. In general, a federal case on average, the average, so to speak, a federal case takes two years to complete.
This includes cases that end through a jury trial or through cooperation. Therefore, a person has a lot of time to make this decision. But in general, if you are not sure whether to go or not, because you think that maybe you did something, but maybe it is not so scary. Look at the database, do an examination, understand what the prosecutor's office has, because again, according to American law and the constitution, before the start of the jury trial, the prosecutor's office is obliged to give you everything they have to the defense.
There are several categories of information, the first category of information.
Carder:
Yes, it's called Discovery.
Lawyer:
It's called Discovery, there are several categories of information. The first is what everyone knows, like criminal information, they must give you. But also the second category of information, this is called information that shows that you are innocent. That is, if the prosecutor's office has information that you are innocent, they are also obliged to give you this information. And therefore, when a person receives all this, you look at what's there. Again, sometimes there are cases where it’s not clear, 50/50. You might win, you might lose.
And then, in the end, it’s the client who makes the decision. I come to the client, we discuss it together, we look at what they have, what evidence and everything else. I tell the client all the pros, all the cons, and based on that, the person makes the decision.
If they admit guilt and don’t cooperate.
Carder:
Igor, tell me, please, I’ve always been interested in this question. If I hadn’t started cooperating with them, that is, if they extradited me to America. Let’s say I looked at all the charges and said, okay, fine, I’m guilty, but I don’t want to rat anyone out. I’m always wondering about my conscience. If I had gone down that path, how much do you think I would have gotten? You know my case well enough. I would have told you, I’m just keeping quiet.
I admit my guilt in court, that is, there is no need for a jury trial. I simply admit my guilt and that's it, yes, that is, but at the same time I am silent, I am not going to cooperate, how much would I get, what do you think, but you have already given the password, no, I have not given the password, yes, I would not give anything, I flew to America, I just say I'm plead guilty, yes, that is, I admit my guilt, yes, I am guilty, but at the same time I do not want to talk at all and
do not give the password and I do not give the password, yes, look, then if.
Lawyer:
You probably know about this situation when a person wants to admit his guilt without cooperation or with cooperation, but it doesn’t matter, he admits his guilt, he signs a document called PLEAGREEMENT, and in this PLEAGREEMENT there is an approximate calculation of what your term will be recommended by the Sentencing Guidelines, as if you remember
I said earlier that each article has a minimum and maximum term, and then there is a recommended term, so every year Congress issues or updates a kind of law called the United States Sentencing Guidelines. And in these Sentencing Guidelines there are all sorts of factors that I mentioned earlier, how much damage and everything else. And then based on this, the Total Offense Level is calculated. It is usually 31 points, 32 points or 33 points in cybers.
Carder:
But I was facing fifty-six years, fifty-six years was that term. Listen, listen.
Lawyer:
When, when a person, signing under make-up, simply accepts guilt without cooperation, but he accepts guilt, and he accepts it quickly, then, as a rule, three points are cut from you. These sentencing, United States Sentencing Guidelines, they take three points off you. Without anything.
Pavlovich:
Just imagine taking guilt.
Carder:
Yes, for damages like Seryozha's, they add ten.
Lawyer:
If you don't want to cooperate, just admit your guilt, not to screw anyone over, you will be given a discount, but it will be insignificant, completely insignificant, it can be a year or two, and if a person faces 56 years, like you, or 30 years, it doesn't make much of a difference, so in these cases, of course, it is better to cooperate actively.
Working with the case.
Pavlovich:
Yeah, imagine what he's pushing you to do, pushing you to snitch, in short. Well, okay, I get it, so, okay, so what's the solution we have, that when you come to America you are either completely innocent there and go to trial with those imprisoned and there it's a matter of luck, yes, or if you understand that the evidence against you is serious enough, then you admit guilt and start cooperating with them, well, in plain text, turning someone in, that's where Vladik is sitting.
Lawyer:
How does it usually work? I'll give you an average example. Someone calls me from London or Italy, like, I've been arrested, I was here on vacation, I came here to hang out, I was arrested for extradition to the USA. Very often I go to London or Italy or some other country and meet with the client in a pretrial detention center there, and we have a conversation there and understand where this case is going.
Sometimes there were even cases where if a person wants to cooperate, I call the prosecutor's office or an agent from America, and they come to Europe, or to the country where the person is, and cooperation begins there. Then, then, he extradites him, we have the first hearing, right after the extradition in court, it's usually not very long, nothing grandiose happens there, the person just says that he is innocent, and they give you some other hearings for the future, and before that, they give you a discovery hearing.
Types of cooperation (cooperation with authorities) and advice from Igor Litvak.
Lawyer:
And after that, if a person wants to continue cooperating, we organize meetings, start cooperating. Cooperation can be very different, it is like all cyber cases, there are bots, there is ransomware, there is carding, anything.
A person starts cooperating. In general, I will tell you, I am very often asked what kind of cooperation gives the most results, what kind of cooperation gives you the biggest discount on your potential term. I will say the following.
A person who was arrested, who has a nickname and who has a good reputation behind this nickname, he knows this nickname on forums, he is trusted, he has been in business for a long time, and people do not know that he was arrested, that is, he has a nickname, people do not know that he was arrested, he comes to America and begins to actively sit on forums, in chats and talk with other people with whom he used to work. This type of cooperation gives the greatest results.
Cooperation can be different, there is cooperation when you give one name, and it is still cooperation, and there is cooperation when you sit for four years three times a week, like a full-time job, from nine to five you sit on the forum with an agent next to you and talk to suspects.
Therefore, cooperation is very different, but in principle, as I already said, a person, a client always has a choice according to the constitution, according to the law, or a jury trial, or cooperation, or simply admitting guilt without cooperation, how to go according to the law and ethics, only the client chooses, a lawyer can only advise, and therefore when we meet and talk, he tells me everything, everything that happened. But it also depends on whether he was arrested with a computer or without a computer. We need to understand what is happening there. I have seen situations, seriously now, when people thought that they had arrested me, I would now, therefore, give everything, cooperate with them, give them the password, give them the computer, everything would be cool, I would go home.
And for certain reasons, he made things worse for himself. He made things worse for himself just by doing this. So again, my advice, I tell everyone this, I will always tell everyone, before doing anything, contact a lawyer so that he can advise you well.
How long should you wait for cooperation from the day of arrest?
Pavlovich:
Igor, and after how long on average, from the day of arrest to cooperation, how much time passes, in your experience, specifically in cybercrime cases?
Lawyer:
Again, it depends on the case. You must understand that sometimes, as I said earlier, starting to cooperate right away has certain big-big advantages. I'll explain why. Look, if a person is arrested, if he does not cooperate, he simply goes to fight, or does not cooperate right away, let's say, he will look at the database, understand what is happening there, then the fact of his arrest can be advertised.
And if it is advertised and all his colleagues, partners of this person knew that he was arrested, then a very large part of the cooperation may simply no longer exist. People will destroy evidence, destroy databases, they will disappear, move, let's say, stop leaving Russia or Ukraine, or something like that.
So again, there is no such thing as a universal rule. The first rule is to call a lawyer as soon as you are arrested and talk to him. And then look further. Again, there are many advantages when cooperating immediately leads to good results. As I said before, so consult with a lawyer and then decide.
But in principle, I will say honestly, Most, of course, cases, most cases, guys, those who want to cooperate, who decided to do it, they usually do it at the beginning, that is, they do it quickly right after the arrest. Usually there is nothing bad about it, but sometimes it ends badly.
Carders Dmitry Smilyanets and Vladimir Drinkman.
Pavlovich:
So what about Drinkman, Vova Drinkman, they denied his appeal today, he asked for a reduction in his sentence, he has 12 years, why? Why did he get 12 years, while the brave Smilyanets got 5 or 3 kopecks or something? I don’t even know.
Reference:
Dmitry Smilyanets (Smil, Smi), served 4 years in the USA.
Lawyer:
You know, Smilyanets and Drinkman are both my clients. And I am representing Drinkman now in this appeal that you just mentioned. By the way, we will now file for reconsideration. By the way, this was not an appeal, it was a petition to release him on the basis of his health. And the federal judge denied us now, and next week we are filing for, what is called, reconsideration.
But since these are both my clients, I cannot discuss the details, excuse me, why one got this, the other got that. I just, considering my position, I consider, legal, so to speak, confidentiality.
Carder:
Okay. One question. Do they have a conflict of interest?
Lawyer:
They have a conflict of interest, and they both veiled this conflict of interest. This is when both clients, if there is a conflict, they can say that there is a conflict, but I do not object. And they both signed a document that veiled this conflict, and thus I could represent both of them in the criminal case.
Pavlovich:
But why 12? Is 12 a lot in his case or a little?
Carder:
It seems to me that one was simply breaking, and the other was simply selling, so the one who was selling gets less. It's like the same thing with drugs. You know, one cooks, the other sells, so the one who cooks gets more, you understand?
Lawyer:
Again, I cannot comment on why one got more, one got less. The only thing I want to say is that we hope that Drinkman will be released soon. In fact, his health is not very good, I mean against the background of this coronavirus, he has certain conditions that increase the risk of coronavirus for him.
And that's why we're fighting now to get him out of prison. Let's see how it ends.
Coronavirus in American prisons.
Carder:
What's the situation with coronavirus in American prisons? Are people really sick there? I heard there's a total lockdown, no one's leaving. How is that even happening?
Advocate:
It's terrible, a terrible situation, terrible. There's a huge outbreak there where Drinkman is sitting, in that prison in quarantine. Half the inmates are in quarantine there now. I think one guard even died. And it's much worse in that prison now than it was in the summer. And that's why when we file for reconsideration for Drinkman, that's one of the things we'll bring up.
The situation in that prison has gotten much worse than it was a couple of months ago. It's the same in other prisons. In Brooklyn, in federal pretrial detention centers. It's terrible. Total lockdown.
Carder:
And even with this lockdown, people are getting sick through food, through these trays. Something is still spreading them. And I think that someone is deliberately trying to infect someone. Let's, yeah, spit on it, cough it up in his trade, like Tubikom, there's definitely something like that. Let's cough it up in the food, definitely.
Advocate:
Anything is possible, anything is possible, of course, but I will say that the situation is very dire, people are dying, people are becoming crippled. Some people who are in very poor health are even being released, that's what we're trying to do for Drinkman now.
Carder:
And what about Seleznev? He's really in poor health.
Advocate:
Seleznev too. I filed for Seleznev in the summer in July, I filed a similar petition for Roman. Similar. We filed it in the North Carolina court. And now we have a small trial going on there. And we are now waiting for the court's decision on Seleznev. We actually requested that he either be transferred to a hotel while the pandemic is going on, or that he be sent home.
And now we are waiting for the decision, I hope we will get it soon.
Is Drinkman's sentence normal in general?
Pavlovich:
Is 12 years a good sentence for Vova Drinkman or is it a long one or a normal one, considering what he did? In your opinion, it is clear that for him, it seems long to him, especially given that Smely received much less. But if you look at it objectively, yes, just from the outside, lawyers and so on, is this a normal term or is it a lot?
Lawyer:
You see, just so to speak, good or bad, you don’t understand what the person did and what this term is based on, and in order for me to tell you this, I will have to violate legal confidentiality, I don’t, but we know approximately, we know approximately.
Pavlovich:
What did he do, he did a lot right from my house, we were in Minsk, that is, I know his skill, so is this term normal or long, just say two words, normal, well, good, or.
Lawyer:
Bad, well, long, if the person did not cooperate, let’s say 12 years, forget about Danipan altogether, 12 years in cyber, if the person did not cooperate, he simply took the deal and did not cooperate, then this is a good term. Well, sort of average. Listen, but he got 15, Butler. You know, some people get more there, some less, but it’s somewhere in this area.
If a person does not cooperate, there are big losses. If a person cooperates, if a person cooperates, To get 12 years, even 7 years in the case of Vlad Khorokhorin, in my opinion, this is a very long term, seriously.
Carder:
A long term?
Igor Litvak: "In my cases, no one got more than 5 years."
Lawyer:
Would you have done less? Yes, yes. I don't know, I can't say that I would have done less or more. I'll just say that in my cases, where I worked, I never had a person who cooperated, who were arrested, they were threatened with 40-50 years too. I'm serious, no one got more than 5 years. But again, this is so, you see, I was not involved in your case. It's hard for me to fully say why your term was this or that.
But in general, in general, if a person cooperates, in general, 12 years from...
Carder:
I had it because I had... It's high. Igor, I'll tell you a little bit of my stories, yes. I had a hopeless prosecutor, yes. I mean, I had one who was normal, you know him, for sure, Ethan Armsen, right? I mean, he was normal, you can talk to him. And I had a second one, he's now, I think, Aus's deputy, Corbin Weiss. You definitely know that bastard too. So that bastard was always telling me, I'll drive you into the ground.
He, I mean, he was always against me. And only because all the agents were really trying to persuade me, well, really, both the booze and the agents. And I also had a very good judge. The judge was Heuvel, Ellen Sigal Heuvel. I mean, I was very lucky, she was quite liberal. And she says, she told me at the end of sentencing, she says, I can see that you're a very smart person, she says, use, she says, your knowledge, well, wisely, she says, I'm giving you a normal sentence, she says, and I, she says, want you, when you get out, she says, to remember what I told you, yeah.
But this Corbin Weiss, the bitch, he was always trying to screw me. He'd put me in a bad prison, you know, he put me in Fairfax, with these fucking rednecks, so that the moles would tear them apart, you know, this, then somewhere else, you know. Well, I was always doing some kind of nasty thing, specifically from this Weiss. Then he got this fucking Adams, the agent, the bitch, the stinking faggot, you know, and, well, he was always doing some kind of nasty thing to me.
And everything else went well for me, that's why I think it was 7 years. Well, you just don't know these people, if you want to comment.
Lawyer:
Look, I'm not arguing, I won't argue, maybe that's why you got such a sentence. But I'll tell you, and again, your main case was in the 2000s, if I'm not mistaken, or at the end of the 2000s.
Carder:
No, in general it was self-development already in 2011, 2012, 2013, so I had self-development. I was sentenced at the end, in the middle of 2012.
The case of carder Evgeny Nikulin.
Lawyer:
I get it, I get it, well, look, 7 years, I'll give you an example, Nikulin, Evgeny Nikulin, he recently went to a jury trial, he went to a jury trial, lost it on all counts, completely lost on all counts and received, I think, something like 88, something like that, he received the minimum, received a sentence similar to yours, and he lost the jury trial.
Carder:
His judge took pity on him, he has this face, you know, like he was beaten, like blacks screwed him, you know. Beaten him.
Lawyer:
No. If you want, I'll explain why he got such a short sentence.
Carder:
Why.
Lawyer:
I was involved in this case, too.
Cooperation and "discounts" on the sentence.
Lawyer:
Now this is a separate issue. I just want to say something else, that 7 years or 7.3 years now, this is considered high for cooperators. I have many examples where people who were arrested, who were threatened with 35 years, 40 years, 30 years, who were released 2 years, 3 years, 4 years, 5 years with good cooperation, with good positive cooperation, when you get 5k1, you know what 5k1 is, it is a letter that
the prosecutor's office sends to the court, where the prosecutor tells the judge that he gave us substantial cooperation, which was substantial assistance to us, based on this letter the judge can already formally, legally give a significant discount from the recommended term. But again, therefore people who cooperate well receive 5k1 or Rule 35, on average, if it is structured correctly, they receive from 2.
Carder:
Let me remind you of Rule 35, I have already forgotten, just refresh my memory because time has passed, I remember this something.
Lawyer:
I'll explain, most of the time people cooperate until the verdict, that is, you have a criminal case, so while it's going on you cooperate, and while this cooperation can take a year, it can take five years, it doesn't matter. And while this cooperation is going on, the case is kind of postponed, postponed, postponed. And then, when the cooperation is over, you go to the verdict. And before the verdict, you receive, if the prosecutor's office wanted it, in their opinion, you receive a letter 5k1, which is submitted to the court in secret, and based on this 5k1, the judge gives a discount during the verdict.
Sometimes there are cases, sometimes there are cases when a person cooperates after the verdict. Ah, that's it, I remembered. So, a person, let's say, came, I don't know, let's say, or did not cooperate, and because he thought he was cool, he gets a short sentence. He
got a sentence, it turned out to be long, he's like, wow, you know, I want to cooperate. And that's why there's a rule called Rule 35, which says, it says two things. A person has two ways to cooperate after a verdict. The first option. It has to be exactly within one year after the verdict.
If it's one day longer, it doesn't work. And it says the following, that within a year the prosecutor must file in court what's called Rule 35 motion, which says that after the verdict in that year he cooperated and gave us substantial assistance and that's why we want to give him, as it were, a cut in the term because at that moment there's already a verdict.
Like a retrial, right? Yes, it's like a retrial, it's like a moment to cut the term. Sometimes there are situations when more than a year passes. Let's say a person served 2 years after the verdict, and he wants to cooperate, there are different situations, what to do? Then in this case, in order for the prosecutor's office to get the Rule 35 motion, you must prove, well, like show or explain or argue with the prosecutor's office that the information you gave them, you received it only more than a year after the verdict.
Therefore, these are the two ways how you can cooperate after the verdict. Through Rule 35.
Pavlovich:
Yes. And what advantages does this give? Can they reduce the time?
Lawyer:
In general, I advise cooperating before the verdict and getting 5k1. But in general, there is a situation where this is impossible. We were recently in one state, by the way, in two States. There is such a concept, it's called Racket Ducky. By the way, you can go to Google, google it, there is even a Wikipedia page about it, what is Rocket Docket.
There are some courts in America, very few of them, somewhere around 5 or 6 courts, that say the following: you were arrested, you came to court, it was his first appearance, after the first appearance the court immediately pushes you to a jury trial. Either you go to a jury trial, or you accept guilt. That is, this court, it will not give you 2, 3, 4 years to cooperate and then go to sentencing.
It tells you, look, first appearance, you said you are innocent, we have a Rocket Docket district, we will not wait three years for you to cooperate, so now you decide whether you go to a jury trial or you accept guilt. When the court says something like that, the thing is that cooperation takes time. It does not usually happen in a month or two.
Cooperation, by the way, in order for it to be good, positive, takes a year or two on average. The court, which the enemies of the datkit in the district, it will not wait for you two years for you to uncooperate. Therefore, in these courts, what happens there is sort of the opposite, in ordinary courts you cooperate, then you go to the verdict, the term that you received, you serve it and go home.
In the courts, which Rocket Docket there are the opposite, you arrive, you almost immediately, if you cooperate, if you decided to cooperate, almost immediately accept your guilt. When you accept this guilt, you do not yet know if the cooperation will work out or not. Sometimes you know, but usually you do not, because it has not yet begun. You understand your guilt through pli and grimmin, you already understand what your approximate term will be for this pli and grimmin.
Then, after a month or two, you go to the verdict, you get a verdict that doesn't take into account your cooperation at all, and then when you have a verdict, you copy it from prison for 2, 3, 4, 5 years, and then when you've finished your cooperation, you go back to court and your verdict is cut.
Carder:
I don't have that. Well, in general, yes, it seems like they told me that I had this Rocket Docket, yes, what did they tell me right away, either you copy, yes, like don't bother us, either you copy, or you go straight to the trial, because we didn't want to hold Suvorov here, we have this, we have that. That's why it's like that.
Pavlovich:
If we translate it into Russian, it's like expedited proceedings. Expedited proceedings, yes.
"Rocket Docket" courts.
Lawyer:
Yes. That's how it is. And it's so inconvenient, you understand. The problem is that in the first version, as I said, in fact it's much better. Because when you cooperate in a traditional way, when you go to the verdict, when you go to the verdict, you also know approximately what the prosecutor's office will recommend, what you will get, what they will take into account for your cooperation. When you go through Rocket Docket, because the cooperation has not yet begun, you receive a sentence blindly.
You do not understand, okay, I just got 20 years, and now you have to hope that in 5 years they will file a 35 steering wheel for you there. Therefore, of course, it is always better to do it the traditional way through 5k1 to plow for 3-5 years or 2 years to go to the sentence. Sometimes it is impossible.
To be continued...
Pavlovich:
Here, guys, is such an issue, a continuation is definitely to be. I will leave a link to the site and Vladik's channel under the topic, be sure to subscribe in Telegram, because the things that he writes there and analyzes from the world of carding and in general in life in general, you will not find anything like this anywhere, I am sure. I also read there regularly. Write what you liked, didn't like, and your comments, questions. We will answer them. Hugs, thank you all for reading, bye!
Vlad's channel: https://t.me/cybersecs Vlad's website: https://cybersec.org Lawyer Litvak: https://nyccrimelawyer.com
Last edited:
