Cloned Boy
Professional
- Messages
- 1,085
- Reaction score
- 824
- Points
- 113
Famous carder Sergey Pavlovich talks to equally famous hacker and carder Vladislav Khorokhorin, nicknamed BadB, and American lawyer Igor Litvak about the American justice system, cooperation with American intelligence agencies, which leads to a significant reduction in the term, whether Americans cheat when reaching an agreement, how to find out if a criminal case has been opened against you in America, and much more.
Enjoy reading!
Contents:
How do I know if I've been sent to a "Rocket Docket" court?
Pavlovich:
How do I know if I've been sent to a Rocket Docket court, whether it's with expedited proceedings or not, that is, you say there aren't many of them in the US, how do I know?
Lawyer:
There's a Wikipedia page called Rocket Docket on Wikipedia, it explains everything about Rocket Docket, it lists all the courts, I think there are 6 or 7 federal courts, out of hundreds.
Pavlovich:
That's not enough, right?
Lawyer:
Those are very few courts, there are hundreds of federal courts in America, so there are 6, 7, or 8 of these Rocket Dockets, I think, or something like that. But you can easily look this up on the Internet.
How do I "cut" my sentence?
Pavlovich:
And if you start cooperating there, collaborating with the investigation, with the prosecutor's office, with the investigation, respectively, with all these special agents. What information is the American authorities primarily interested in so that it can be counted as cooperation and a significant part of the sentence can be cut off?
Lawyer:
A very good question, and this is a lawyer who deals with federal cases, who has handled large cooperators, this is the lawyer who can help with this, because many lawyers don’t know anything about this at all, they say I’m just cooperating, I’m leaking everything, everything will be fine. In general, how does it work? So, look, as I explained earlier, there is a process called 5k1. This is a letter that the prosecutor’s office gives. In order to get this letter, the prosecutor who is handling your case, he goes to what is called the Sentencing Committee.
The Sentencing Committee is in the prosecutor’s office where your prosecutor works. There are maybe 5 or 3 or 7 regular prosecutors, they sit in one room, the prosecutor comes with the agents who handled your case, and they tell them what you did, what results you were able to achieve for the prosecutor’s office.
And the sentencing committee, before they vote whether you get 5k1 or not, the three most important things they look at are the following. First. If as a result of your cooperation the prosecutor's office was able to make inditments against other people, that is, you went to the grand jury to testify, that is, for the sake of your cooperation, if an inditment was made, That's a very big thing.
That's the first thing. Second. If arrests were made for the sake of your cooperation, that's a very important thing. Third. If you were able to stop some, I don't know, hack that's happening now, that's ongoing, like a hack in progress.
Let's say you know that right now a million dollars are being sucked out of someone's bank every day. You came with this information, you said it, you stopped it. Cool. The fourth thing, also very important, which they consider very seriously before voting on 5K1 or not, I'm already saying more in cyber crimes, is connecting nicknames with real names.
Very often the FBI secret services have a bunch of nicknames. A bunch of nicknames, hundreds of nicknames, but they don't know who it is, what kind of person it is, where he lives, what country he is in, what his name is.
This is connecting a nickname with a real person or with a city or with an address, that's also it.
How many people did BadB "de-anonymize"?
BadB:
In this regard, I had it all in a row, they divided up all my ICQs, there were about three thousand.
Pavlovich:
There were people, yes, how many did you personally know, who was from where, well, personally I knew only a few, not personally, but who was from where, from which cities, how many did you hand over from your ICQ list of 3 thousand.
BadB:
Well, a lot, it's just that they, well, this one worked out great for them, that is, they were able to, because people, for example, sent me Western Union, and this Western Union, it was all written there, that is, it is generally unclear how many Americans, the village, especially Americans, they immediately slapped them down there.
Pavlovich:
Ah, well you mean buyers, right?
BadB:
Buyers, yes, but for them too, they don't care who to put in jail, in fact. Right? Well, yes, all they want is this case, they close it, you know, that is, the faster they close it, the more stars they get for themselves. The more people? Yes, the more people, the more, that is, it doesn’t really matter to them whether they closed a big cyber crime or a small one, the main thing for them is to formalize the case and that’s it.
Igor Litvak: “There is a lot of information that can lead to a significant reduction in the term...”
Lawyer:
Yes, yes, you are absolutely right, but these are the things that will give you the greatest chance to get a 5k1 letter, these four things that I kind of said earlier, renamed. But there is also other information, there is a lot of any information that can lead to a significant cut in the term, even if you don’t get 5k1, because even if the prosecutor’s office didn’t give you 5k1 and didn’t file it in court
for various reasons, maybe because they think that you didn’t provide such significant cooperation, maybe because the cooperation fell apart, there are different options, but even if you didn’t get 5k1, you still, when the verdict comes, you are a lawyer, your lawyer will always tell the judge about the cooperation.
And then the judge himself, despite the fact that the prosecutor does not ask this, the judge himself will give you some, as if he will cut off some term, some discount from the term that he was going to give.
Useful information.
Pavlovich:
For trying, right? He still helped, but it didn't work out 100%.
Lawyer:
You know, I'll tell you one thing. A lot of guys, when they're arrested, they start telling you different information. They call it, prosecutors call it, and agents call it intelligence. That is, it's like in Russian... Investigation. Investigation, yes. Investigation. That is, he said that, like, I may have seen this photo, there's this one, the 5th one saw it, the 10th one told me, he dumped everything else.
Yes, useful information, but the useful information itself won't end with a significant discount, 5k1 won't end. They have certain things that they look at. There was an induction, there were arrests, some crimes that were in progress were stopped, he revealed some individuals to us, who we can arrest in the future. These are the kinds of things that will very often be the result that you get under the FCIVA.
But again, even if there is none of this, and you want to cooperate, because you understand that there is no point in going to a jury trial, you will only get the maximum, you can cooperate. Give the information that you have. Sometimes, by the way, I will tell you a secret, sometimes the guys, when they are arrested, they are empty. They were doing something there, but they have no cooperation. And they are empty, but they want to cooperate, because at the jury trial you will get twenty and that's it.
They want to cooperate, and therefore, since I have a lot of connections in cyber, among the CIS, I represented many guys who have already returned, whom I know, many people, you can create a project, or even buy it sometimes. If a person is empty, but wants to cooperate, and he has money, you can buy a project or you can create something and bring it to them and thus also get a good discount.
"Exotic" options for cooperation with the special services.
Pavlovich:
What do you mean, we say, okay, tomorrow I've been in one topic or another, yes, I can't rat anyone out on it, even if I wanted to, but I say, let's create, using Albert Gonzalez as an example, let's create a VPN service that I advertise, where a million people will come, let's say, and then we'll close everyone there, in short. Either we'll create some kind of forum, or a cash-out service, something like that.
Is that what you mean or what?
Lawyer:
Sergey, you know, it's so funny. I've heard ideas like these so many times, clients have told me, let's offer a VPN, let's offer a drag service, where purchases will come from eBay. In general, everything they offered. And I brought it, offered it to prosecutors, and offered it to agents. They say it's too fancy for them. Such products are too fancy. Well, it's too many resources, VPN.
Well, like Zalez did. Listen, even one person said, let's make a hacker conference, I'll organize it. All the hackers will come to me for this conference, and the secret service will be there to take pictures of everyone. That is, everything they offered, anything. But, as a rule, usually... - Did they offer transportation too? - Stop it. There are different exceptions, of course. There are different situations, but usually they will say that it's too fancy for them.
Because you have to understand, it's a huge bureaucracy. They have a ton of other things to do besides cyber. Organizing some kind of VPN service, there, first of all, other legal issues that need to be understood, can the FBI do this or not. Maybe some innocent person will install a VPN on himself.
In general, there are many moments there that are so fancy, like exotic, they often call them, they say, Igor, this is very exotic, this is very exotic. What are you saying, Igor, this won’t work for us.
Current types of cooperation.
Pavlovich:
What can you really do?
Lawyer:
I’ll explain. You can buy a project, I mean, some name, turn someone in, someone. Or you know, let’s say you have money, and you tell me, Igor, come on, find someone who can work with me, help me.
BadB:
No, for example, now there is, for example, some kind of cashing out, right? And the person says, like, this kind of crap, right? Or he says, let’s say, I know, yes, the information is such that this kind of group, yes, it is going to do this and that, you know? That is, this kind of information. So if you don’t know anything, you can...
Pavlovich:
Yes!
BadB:
No, if it is impossible, they buy this information from someone else and give it to the person, that is, his channel in which he works, they buy information from such people and give it to the person with whom he works. In short, I did not understand anything, now you.
Lawyer:
This is one example. No, what Vlad said is very relevant. Let's say if someone was arrested, he is empty, there is no cooperation, he needs to turn in someone. Or he needs to turn in so that an indictment can be made on him. Then, if a person has financial resources, such information can be bought, and then bring it to the prosecutor's office, as if it came from you. There are again various nuances, the prosecutor's office cannot know that it was bought, because if they find out that you bought it, they will not count anything against you.
Pavlovich:
In short, cool, you need to open a business, sell some criminal stories. A criminal story that is 3 years in prison, minus 3 years in prison, there, 20 thousand dollars.
BadB:
Well, roughly, yes. That is, up to the point that, well, people created, I know that people created these stories, out of nothing, yes. For example, a person actually scanned the Internet, found a hole, came up with a nickname and under this fake nickname made this hole, you know, that is, he wrote somewhere on some cool forums, I won’t say about this, yes, that is, he made this hole and, by the way, sold it to this same, well, that is, in order to get this person
who is sitting to whom he sold, who gave him money, out, that is, well, I’ve heard such stories.
Lawyer:
Yes, there is another such thing and another topic that I saw, that if a person wants to buy a project, you can buy some closed database from some forum, a hacking forum. And there are IP addresses and nicknames and everything else. You buy this database, download it, then give this database to the prosecutor’s office and agents. From this, you can also do, as it were, weld a cooperation. Therefore, such options exist.
If the person is empty, call me, I can’t guarantee or promise anything, but of course I’ll try.
How do you know that you’ve been ratted out?
Pavlovich:
Well, let’s ask Igor, what should you do if, for example, the person you collaborated with was doing some business on the Internet, well, your accomplice, let’s say, if he’s arrested, is it possible to somehow check whether he’s ratted you out or not, that is, is it dangerous for you to travel outside of Russia, Ukraine, or not, how can you check this? But you know that he’s already been arrested.
Lawyer:
It’s impossible to check this formally. My only advice, if your partner has been arrested for some crime, my advice is to assume that you’ve been ratted out. How can you prove this? Only a person can do this if he’s arrested himself, and he gets Discover, he gets this database, evidence against him, and in this database he can see who ratted him out, and how he was found, and everything else.
Well, when your partner has been arrested, it’s usually, usually impossible to say whether he’s ratted you out or not.
There were cases, there were cases when there were leaks to the press, I will not say names now, but there were cases when people were arrested, there was one case when there was a secret service agent, he then left this secret service, during the cooperation he went into private practice and gave an interview to one newspaper that the person was cooperating, and this came out to the public, but this is very rare.
What is "Pacer" and myths?
Lawyer:
On Pacer, I very often heard, people tell me, well, how so, I was on Pacer, I don't have it on Pacer, why is there an indite on me?
Pavlovich:
What is Pacer? Let's explain to our viewers.
Lawyer:
In America, the federal system has a database, an interface called Pacer. So, everything that happens in a federal court, or in a civil case, or in a criminal case, it doesn’t matter, all the papers that are submitted, all the filings, all the decisions, it is sent by the court to this Pacer. There are also indictments, indictments, felony complaints, that is, in theory, in theory, if there is a criminal case against a person, in theory he can go to Pacer and kind of enter his name, by the way, it is a public database, any person, including in Russia, can register for him and do kind of searching, kind of look for, there is a search engine there.
They can’t send a flash drive only in the States now. I had a lot of people who said, well, how come I was arrested, and I was on Pacer, and my name was not on Pacer. I thought everything was fine, why did we arrest me in Italy, for example. So, it is necessary, it is very important to understand that when the inditment, the grand jury, when they issue an inditment before the arrest, before the arrest, as a rule, in 99% of cases this inditment is classified.
It will not be in any database, it will not be on Pacer. And therefore this myth that if you are not on Pacer, then everything is fine, forget about this myth.
BadB:
Yes, but, Igor, I can argue here a little, there is, for example, in my case, yes, when I was arrested, you look at your accomplice, you don’t look at yourself, you will never find him there, but you look at your arrested accomplice, and for me, for example, yes, when a person goes to cooperate, especially when this is an important figure, a case sealed appears, that is, they do not show it further, yes, information is not given out, the case is classified, that is, all information and all proceedings, they are closed, that is, if I see that the case is sealed, this automatically tells me that the person went to cooperate, this means that I am screwed, yes, if I am his partner, that’s all, in my opinion, the logic is very good.
Lawyer:
If you have a codefendant, that is, a defendant who is involved in the same indictment, an accomplice in the same case, who is the same indictment, if you were arrested and the other person was not arrested, when they declassify the indictment, because they have to do it, although there are cases when even after the arrest
the indictment is not declassified, but if for certain reasons after the arrest your indictment was declassified, then you can see your co-defendants in this indictment. But again, I am not talking about this case, when there is a co-defendant who is involved in the same criminal case with you. I am simply saying, here is one against you, you don’t know, here is a person sitting, Igor Litvak, I want to go to Italy, I don’t know whether there is a criminal case against me in America or not.
And I was often told, how, why was I arrested? I checked on Pacer, there was nothing on Pacer. And I say, well man, are you serious? I have never seen anything more stupid. Are you really going to think that the fact that a person is wanted and they want to arrest him, will be publicly put on the Internet? Never in my life. Thus, not a single hacker would ever be arrested. So remember this and do not think that because you are not on the Internet, no one leaked you.
BadB:
Well, yes, there were always wonlogs through him, it did not help him. He had 10 accounts in Pacer and on top of that Acurint, it did not help him at all.
Lawyer:
It did not help him, or anyone else who fell for this thing. And I am shocked, to be honest, it is logical to think, You meet guys who are the smartest people in Kiba, talented people. I worked with people who, if they used their talent for peaceful purposes, probably would have made Russian bulls. But for some reason they can't figure out that this won't happen in Pacer.
And a lot of guys get caught doing this.
Litvak: "If you have really useful information, you can get "immunity.""
Pavlovich:
Well, if such information, for example, is confirmed, that you were leaked, let's say I'm in Russia, for example, and my accomplice or just someone I did some business with, bought or sold something from him, he, let's say, was detained and extradited to the USA. So what, in my opinion, is the best action for me to take at this point?
Lawyer:
You know, there are many different options. The first thing I would advise is not to erase everything right away. That is, I very often see when one is arrested, and the entire group with which he worked, which is at large, begins to erase everything, remove this entire database, erase all emails, everything, as if to cover their tracks and everything, and everything else. And my advice, wait, yes, first... Why is it bad? Because if you then start cooperating, then, and the fact that you started erasing all this and everything else before cooperating, it may not look very good in court.
In general, if you know, a person knows that he has a criminal case in America, or he knows that his client was arrested. A suspect. A partner, sorry. A partner who can leak it. A person has many different options. I have many cases when I was hired by people from the CIS who have cases active in America, who are not under arrest, and to close this case.
Well, this is a slightly different option, much more serious, I say, than what you and I want to do, but the fact is that people have serious indictments, they have serious terms there, and they, let's say, are not in Russia, they are in some third country, they are afraid to go somewhere. They call me, we can start cooperation if the person wants it before arriving in the States.
You can organize meetings with the prosecutor's office, you can organize meetings with agents, start cooperation there. Then, in this way, then, if you have very cool information, very cool, again I want to repeat, very cool, you can try for immunity. Immunity is very rarely given, very rarely. Everyone wants it, but almost no one gets it. There is such a very famous case, just as an example.
The case of mafioso John Gotti and the removal of risks.
Lawyer:
If you know, there was such a mafioso John Gatti. In New York, you have probably heard of him. In New York, the prosecutor's office wanted to put him in prison for a long time. There were two jury trials. He won in both, that is, in one they threatened witnesses, the mafia, in the other, so he won two jury trials.
And the prosecutor's office couldn't put him in jail, and they still came to an agreement, there was one killer there who killed people for money, I think he killed 27 people, his name was Sammy Dybulov. And he testified against Dzhangati at the third jury trial, and he was given immunity for it. They changed his identity, he was there in the witness protection program. So what's the point? You can always try to get immunity.
You have nothing to lose. It will work, it will work, cool. You will get immunity, sign a special document with the government that you have immunity. You calmly come to America, you don't have to worry about anything. Your criminal case is sort of closed. You cooperate and go home calmly. But again, this is very, very rare. I say again, in order to get immunity, something must be so grandiose, something that the prosecutor's office or agents themselves will never be able to get.
Therefore, we always check this point. If immunity is not suitable, or they do not want to give it, or there is no such information for this, then you can go the traditional way, sometimes you can make a deal even before coming to the States, at least try.
Start cooperation via the Internet, via video, meetings, cooperate there for several months, conclude cooperation and grimming, conclude some kind of pli and grimming in advance. That is, in this way, when a person goes to America, he will already know approximately what he is threatened with. Thus, we kind of remove certain risks.
And this is one point. Another point, of course, is the traditional moment, what all people do when you come here, either voluntarily or because you were extradited, and a criminal case begins. But people who are sitting in the CIS, there are options. So call, especially if you have good information that the Americans need, there are definitely options.
Do American law enforcement keep their word?
BadB:
Igor, I am sure many people have this question now. For example, Russian trash, yes, they have such a concept as an officer's word, honor, you understand? They don't have that. We, trash, have money.
Pavlovich:
I also wanted to ask.
BadB:
Shoulder straps, money, you know? That is, money conquers evil, of course, but they just don’t have it, they sell everything for money. They have no honor, no conscience. How much can you trust American cops? That is, I say, I will cooperate with you. They usually say we don’t give guarantees. But judging by everything, you and I will come to an agreement, you’re a good guy. How much can you trust them? How often do they keep their word or not?
Or have you had any cases in your practice where they deceived anyone at all?
Lawyer:
There were cases when they said one thing and did another. There were cases when I caught them in a lie. I recently had a very big high-profile case, it was also written about in the press, Evgeny Bokov, one guy was extradited from Estonia. He was accused of creating Fentanyl, a very strong drug, and importing it to the USA.
And he was arrested in Estonia, he spent 8 months in isolation there before extradition, then he was brought to America. And I remember when he hired me, I received this database date, like a database, like evidence from the prosecutor's office, and before I started looking at it, I did not meet with her, and I ...
When we met, they told me the following. We know everything about your client, we have all the evidence, he must take the blame, if he does not take it, it will be like snapping a finger to prove his guilt, that he is guilty, okay, good, no problem, and the client says to me, Igor, I don’t know what they are talking about at all, but someone says crazy, okay, I remember it was a year ago in August, I went to Odessa, I have relatives in Ukraine, I sat there for three weeks watching all these videos, wiretaps, correspondence, and I was shocked.
This is the first time in 10 years that I have been doing this, I was shocked that what they told me, there was absolutely nothing there. That is, he was accused of creating Fentanyl. The man was never at a single meeting where this was discussed. He never even said the word Fentanyl. And they arrested him for creating Fentanyl, and this is an article where the minimum term, this is a mandatory minimum, 10 years.
That is, even if a person admitted guilt, copped, the judge cannot give you less than ten. And I will tell you honestly, prosecutors, they are lawyers. They have the same license as me, the rules of ethics are the same, for lawyers or prosecutors.
I myself, as I said earlier, did an internship in the prosecutor's office, I have friends who are prosecutors, I communicate with them sometimes, but this is the first time I've seen something like this, when the prosecutor tells me "your client must plead guilty to fentanyl, where the minimum sentence is 10 years, and we will prove it in three minutes, if he doesn't take it, or go to a jury trial." And when I had already looked through this entire database, I came back to them and said "Guys, we are going to a jury trial, because there is nothing here", only then they said "Okay, okay".
They withdrew this article, and we made a deal there with a minimum sentence, he is now going home on January 6, in 2 weeks. So, in general, here's your question, in principle, there is no such thing as corruption for money here. To buy a prosecutor or a police officer, or an agent for money, that's what I mean... if it happens, then it is an exception, it is not the rule.
This is very, very rare, and when it happens, it is written about in the news in all the newspapers.
How does "cooperation" work, documentation.
Pavlovich:
No, we are not talking about corruption, but what, for example, at the beginning, let's say, I was extradited tomorrow, I was caught in the Netherlands, for example, in my personal life, yes, and extradited to the States, so, and they say, listen, let's cooperate here and there, I say, well, okay, let's work, they say something like, if you do this, this and that, you will get three years there, for example, I speak by hand, and I do it in principle almost in full, something I can no longer do for objective reasons, which I would even like to
do. And I do almost everything that they ask of me. And then they do not fulfill their deal and they give me 15 years there. This is somehow recorded on paper, that is, their promises and what I must do. Or they lie, let's say, quite often. How to understand this line?
Lawyer:
Okay, I'll explain how it works. And I'm sure Vlad knows about it too. So, when a person wants to cooperate, he first meets a little, lets the agents know that you have some useful information, and then, when you have already interested them in your cooperation, such a document is signed. It's called a Cooperation Agreement. This is a contract between both parties, between the defense and the defendant, and between the prosecutor's office and the agents.
In this contract, there are different things to discuss, but the most important thing is that in this contract, there is a kind of paragraph. This paragraph says the following. So, if you are a defendant, during your cooperation you were truthful, gave us everything we needed, and, well, this is the key phrase.
If in our discretion, that is, if in our opinion you gave us substantial assistance, that is, in our discretion you gave a substantial assistance, that is, they decide, not now, they decide before the verdict itself, which could be in 2-3 days.
Speaker 3:
They do prosecutors when they get together with all these agents they discuss yes.
Lawyer:
Therefore you sign this contract which says that if they decide that before the sentence which will be in 2 3 5 years you gave significant assistance they will then give you some discount or after 5 to 1 or some other home departure I want to tell one thing to remember once and for all to all your listeners.
When some agent or prosecutor at the beginning of cooperation tells you, well if you cooperate, everything will be fine, they usually do not say some terms, some numbers, 3-4 years, they usually say, well everything will be fine, do not worry, everything will be cool, help us, we will help you too. Sometimes it is true, sometimes it is not. But never Yes, do not believe them. Do not believe them. They sometimes tell the truth. That is, they deceive, right? They can. They can. They can absolutely. They can absolutely.
They can... You can... A person can work like that for 3 years, go 3 times a week from 9 to 5, sit on forums for 3 years, and then they will say, well, you know, we didn't intait anyone, no one was arrested, we won't give you 5k1, because in our opinion it wasn't that much help, we'll ask you for some kind of discount. I understand what I told you three years ago, but so much has happened since then, and then, maybe, the agent left, maybe, your prosecutor changed.
So, all these promises that they tell you at the beginning, I would look at them with a big grain of salt, as they say here.
When to understand whether to cooperate or not?
Pavlovich:
How to understand that line, when to cooperate or not to cooperate? How to understand? That is, only after consulting a lawyer or what?
BadB:
What is the best way to act in such a case? For example, for me it was very scary when to take a step, to give up this password. But in my case they did not deceive me, in my case I deceived them even more, because I did not give them all the information that could have been done and I chose, that is, well, I just have a very good memory in general, and I remember very well what I said and what I did not say and that is precisely my
memory, it did not give, that is, they searched very well with such cross-questions, yes, they tried to find, they tried to find whether I was deceiving them, that is, asking questions, asking but because I remember it, I kept it in my head, that is, all these conversations, they never caught me in a lie during all this time, that is, I did not lie to them, in fact, I could not tell everything if I knew, for example, about someone, I just did not talk about him and well, I said that I knew less, for example
or I say yes I know this person but I don't know let's say in real life I know that they don't know that you know and that is just for those who have a good memory but until the last moment I didn't know why and what I would get you know that is but in my case they kept their word and they gave me 5k1 and I got it but only because a lot of people really suffered from me and it was very difficult to hide it here you know, especially, well, that is such a situation.
Lawyer:
Look, Sergey asked an interesting question, how to know this line. And to me, in my, in general, as I see it, when a person gets into such a situation, he has three choices, he has a choice either you go to a jury trial, where if you lose, you will get hit on the head to the maximum, or take a deal to accept guilt without cooperation, or accept guilt with cooperation.
And also look at yourself, look, even if you don’t know in advance that cooperation will give you some significant discount from the prosecutor’s office, most of the guys, they are in such a situation that despite this, they will still cooperate. Because taking a chance is better than nothing. What other options? Another option is to go to a jury trial, if he knows that he will lose, because he was arrested with a computer, there are witnesses, get 30 years. Okay, that’s not an option. The second option is to take a deal without cooperation, get fifteen. For most people, this is also not an option.
Then the third option is to cooperate. Despite the fact that you can’t know in advance in most cases what kind of loan you will receive, what cut from the term you cannot know in advance, despite this, most of the guys who want to cooperate will still cooperate. What do they have to lose? They have nothing to lose. Well, okay, it will work out, it won’t work out.
If cooperation doesn't work, at least we'll go to the judge and at least tell the judge about all this with the hope that the judge will give you some kind of discount based on the fact that you...
BadB:
They say that a lot depends on the lawyer, how he negotiates, right?
Lawyer:
A lot depends on the lawyer. Having the right lawyer in such cases, in cooperation or going to a jury trial, is simply, as we say, priceless. It is necessary, because the lawyer... And everything else is a master card? Well, of course, a lot depends, if cooperation is conducted on what the person has. If the person is empty, then, excuse me, no matter how cool a lawyer I am, I can't do anything, just take the deal and go to a jury trial.
But if a person has information and wants to go the way of cooperation, what we are discussing today, a lawyer can help a lot, he can tell you how to copy correctly, what projects to give, how to give them, he can tell you what deal is good and what deal is bad.
Up to the point that, for example, you know some agents, right,
BadB:
You know, is this a good agent or a bastard, maybe someone has cheated before.
Igor Litvak: "I know a lot of Secret Service employees."
Lawyer:
Vlad, I was at a Secret Service conference, a service where there were, I think, 400 or 500 agents, we had a huge hall in college, Baruch College. And I gave a speech there. A small one, really. - And were there big mirrors in the toilets? - That's why the agents know me. I even have agents who were agents before, left the Secret Service and call me to get a job with me there, like a private investigator or something like that.
That's why I know a lot of agents from the FBI, from the Secret Service, and that's why a lawyer can, of course, be of great help for many, many reasons.
The Viktor Bout case and the film "Lord of War."
Pavlovich:
And what about Bout, this Viktor Bout, who served as the prototype for the film "Lord of War", what the hell did he get in the US then, how much was it, 30 or 25 thousand?
BadB:
Because this is a political case in general, this is a purely political case.
Lawyer:
You know, Bout is an interesting case. Of course, when I was not involved in this case, I did not participate in it in any way, but I read about it, I was interested. And during the verdict, the judge said something interesting during the verdict. The thing is that Bout has an article under which he... He also had a jury trial. He had a jury trial, he lost it, and the article under which he lost, there was a mandatory minimum, it was a minimum term, in my opinion, if I'm not mistaken, 25 years.
And during the verdict, Bout's defense team, they made a very long speech there, they argued that the case was very weak, there were a lot of problems with this criminal case. But the judge said during the sentencing, well, Viktor Bout, I understand you, he says, I sympathize with you.
I, maybe, if I could, would have given you a much shorter sentence, but there was a minimum mandate of 25 years. And so the judge, she simply tells him, you have to understand me, I can’t, by law I can’t give you less than the sentence they give you. And she gave him the minimum sentence.
He defended Smely, Drinkman and Nikulin.
Pavlovich:
I understand. And who of ours, yes, of the big names, did you defend? You just now, well, we were talking, you defended Smely, defended Skorp Drinkman, Nikulin, who else did you defend, so we know? You defended a psycho too, right?
Lawyer:
And you can generally go to my website nyccrime.Com or just google me, and all my big cases on the Internet, on my website can be found very easily.
Judicial practice of lawyer Litvak.
Pavlovich:
And what do you get from your legal practice, yes, you work there, I don’t know, let’s say with drug lords, with arms dealers, with pimps, for example, with cybercriminals, what interests you most there and what you like and at the same time you manage to achieve some successes and compromises.
Lawyer:
You know, I like everything except drunk driving, that’s what I do: murder and sexual crimes, rape, kidnapping, I do everything, everything, everything. Have you done any pedophiles? No pedophiles yet, not yet.
BadB:
There are a lot of them, it’s just that there, probably the first is drug trafficking, all the blacks are in there, probably 70%, how many, 80% of them are in there for drug trafficking. And the second category in American prisons is pedophiles. Tell me, yes, a confirmed word.
Pavlovich:
Are they roosters there or not? There are no roosters, roosters only rooster at their own discretion.
Lawyer:
You know, in American prisons there are actually a lot of people on drug charges. As for pedophiles, you know, I had one case where a wife accused her husband of sort of picking a seven-year-old boy, well, their son, in the butt with his finger. We had a case like that. It ended up being untrue.
It ended up being her making it up. It was a standard case. And then all the charges were dropped. They just had a conflict with each other. Both they and the wife decided to make up such a story. We fought for a very long time. There was an investigation and everything else. So, look, you have to understand that when a person is accused of something, most of the time it is correct. But there are also many, many cases, I personally see this very often, when the prosecutor's office or agents or the police make mistakes.
Like in the Shawshank Redemption? Something like that, yes. They make mistakes, they arrest innocent people, and then, of course, a lawyer who is good at this is simply priceless, for him to defend you and prove your innocence. But I, in principle, do everything. Well, as I said before, of course, I am most famous for my federal, large federal cases. In general, on extradition, people who are extradited, it is usually either cyber, or drugs, or money laundering, or some kind of financial fraud.
People who are extradited, usually under these articles. And on these articles, of course, I have a lot of experience and work a lot.
Pavlovich:
Well, yes, in short, the link is in the description, you will drive 5000 dollars. And listen, okay, you said drunk driving, you do not defend, or you just do not like it.
Lawyer:
And I have a couple of drunk driving cases, but that's not my thing. They really like drunk driving. If you need to have special technical knowledge of how the machine that's being tested works, you need to have a scientific background. That's why I usually don't deal with drunk driving.
Marijuana cases and saliva test.
Pavlovich:
And marijuana while driving?
Lawyer:
Here in New York, you know, marijuana is already becoming legal almost all over America. Now, marijuana was recently legalized in New Jersey. I'll tell you honestly, when I started practicing, I had a ton of cases, I had a ton of cases on people who were arrested for Now, in general, the last case for marijuana, maybe, was there, I don't know, 4 years ago. Pavlovich:
But
you can't drive a car under the influence of marijuana, right, of course?
Lawyer:
No, but it's very difficult to catch a person. Well, officially, of course, no, you can't. What, they don't give pee tests anymore or what? What, what?
BadB:
The police don't give pee tests anymore, they don't give them, they don't have any more? They don't give you a pee test to pee in a glass?
Lawyer:
No, no, there is a new topic that has come out by the way, I don’t know if you’ve heard, no, by the way, it’s not very widespread now, but there is a saliva test, that is, you have to drag the police to a special device and spit it right next to your car when they stop you, it’s right for you, if he smells marijuana in the car, for example, he gives you a test and you spit on this thing, it goes on for a couple of minutes and tells you what the THC level was.
That’s what exists. But it’s not very widespread. The police are generally neutral about this, right? Again, they can arrest you for this, but these are not federal cases, these are minor state cases, which don’t require much work.
Who needs a lawyer?
Pavlovich:
Well, I understand. So what if we’re talking about federal cases and so on? That is, we’ve just talked about carders, all kinds of cybercriminals, hackers, carders, arms dealers, drug dealers. Who else would benefit from an American lawyer?
BadB:
Secret discounter, connect, yes, right away.
Lawyer:
Look, if you have a criminal case, then in any criminal case a lawyer will help you, even if it is not the coolest lawyer who understands, he will help you somehow, so my advice, in general my advice, if you are accused of something, you are threatened, this is some serious case, not some kind of
peed in the park after 12 I say what is serious before 10 even where some serious term is threatened always call a lawyer in any case talk to him even if you do not find.
Pavlovich:
Well, at least talk and communicate well I'll see I'll see how you help me then I'll tell but this will be on the channel if if Igor helps me yes then the next next season we will not spend behind bars but I hope there in California yes I will be filming these life maybe at least in Bali. Yes, fabulous Bali. Fabulous Bali. The main thing is not to be deceived fabulously.
The case of the BadB carder.
Pavlovich:
In short, let's say you came to America, who did you rat out, that is.
BadB:
Who did I rat out?
Pavlovich:
I ratted out the dump buyers.
BadB:
Well, yes, the buyers right away were those with whom I worked, that is, the most interesting, the most important thing was Who did you work with the most? With Johnny Hell, with Psycho, with me, with someone? Well, with Johnny Hell, with Psycho, of course, I went straight away. They surprised me, they just killed me. I was like, you know, sitting there, scratching my balls, in short, to rat out, not to rat out. Well, as if I were starting to talk, yes, that is, they knew about him, they immediately turned him in. They killed me, in short, they say, this is, in short, track 2, Bulba. I say, come on.
And you didn't know? I didn't know, I didn't know, that is, I suspected, I thought, in short.
Pavlovich:
We only worked with him under Psycho, Psycho, Psycho Support there/.
BadB:
Then he didn't work with anyone, he worked with some people. He worked with Skorpo later, but he really limited his circle of communication when he started working under Bulba. Before that, he was afraid of me, then when I was closed, he started more... By the way, in fact, a very large longread will be published on my site now
Pavlovich:
Specifically about Seleznev, so look Yes, the link is in the description cybersec.org, right? Yes, he stole the domain from Bukh, in short, corporately.
BadB:
Why stole it? This is my idea from one more person One person doesn't object, that is, I'm doing this for now.
Pavlovich:
Okay, I turned in the buyers of dumps, turned in all my colleagues-sellers of dumps, right? Okay Who else?
BadB:
That's it, who else is there to turn in, if I only worked with dumps.
Lawyer:
Vlad, I have a question, did you have 5k1? Yes. You had 5k1, and you got 7.5 with 5k1?
BadB:
Yes, I had 5k1 officially. They said, you know who they accepted. They said that thanks to Khorokhorin, they managed to strengthen the testimony against this person. This person is angry with me, he doesn’t even talk to me now and says, I don’t know how fair or unfair, that I’m a jerk, you know, and that’s why it’s like this,
what to do, it’s not us, life is like that, I want to look at everyone in such a situation, when they find themselves and when they tell you 56 years old or let’s talk, I don’t know, heroes.
Case of carder Sergei Pavlovich.
Pavlovich:
Not enough actually, I’m not a hero, I’ll say it right away. You see, it was easier for me, when I had my case, this is what you are talking about, there is this agriculturism on cooperation before the cooperation agreement where everything is spelled out in Russian realities, but in the CIS post-Soviet union there is no such thing, in the Belarusian Criminal Code this is Article 69, something like assistance to the investigation sounds and there are about 20 points there about how
you can help the investigation like compensation for damages reconciliation there and to hand over someone there still active assistance in solving the crime and from these 20 figuratively points when you have 3 at least 3 will be collected then they give you this article but it is not in writing that is you are already cooperating with them before you start handing over someone else something but you are not sure that the investigator will write it for you but if he writes here he gave it to me to read he wrote thank God I did not have
to I was not in such a situation as you yes thank God I was never given a choice there to hand over these or not to hand over, it was easier for me, they say well we see there from the surviving correspondence someone bought dumps, they say there is no point in denying it, well and I say that I bought dumps there from Niko there is a psycho for example, who is he, well they did not care at all who he is, where is he from, I say yes I don’t know where from, well he speaks Russian, that is, well from Russia probably there, I don’t know, from Ukraine, and that’s it, and I basically just admitted my guilt
and you know, it’s not like I helped them, or turned someone in, but I just made their job easier, he says, I don’t even care about sending these requests back and forth, somewhere under a VPN, why should I send these papers for a year? You just admit, you have to, I don’t know how it is in America, when you admit your guilt, you have to tell the court that I did this and that, this and that, otherwise suddenly you took someone else’s guilt upon yourself for some reason, you
Lawyer:
everyone threatened. Yes, yes, yes. It’s like that in America too, right? It’s called plea elocution. 100%. It’s the same in America.
Pavlovich:
Well, it turns out that I admitted it, and until the case was closed I wasn’t sure that he would keep his promise. But, as we understand, yes, although in America you also sign this cooperative aggregation, but still most of it happens on trust, right?
Lawyer:
Cooperative aggregation, yes, because before the verdict you don’t know that you will receive some kind of loan on the basis of this cooperation and you will receive it. Therefore, you sign, you hope that the cooperation And that the prosecutor’s office will consider this cooperation significant. And as I said earlier, what they look at most importantly is indiments, arrests, stopping criminal cases in progress and connecting nicknames with real individuals.
They look at other things too, but this is the most important thing.
Pavlovich:
Well, that’s what happened to me, when they apply this article 69 of the Criminal Code to me, it means that the maximum is taken under your article. I had from 3 to 10 there, the maximum is taken and they can’t give you more than half, that is, if they applied this to you, like you have 5k1, and we have 69, more than 5, that is, half the term, the maximum he couldn’t give me, yes.
BadB:
You need to get your backups somewhere, I'll tell you this, because in my case, for example, it says that these backups were yes, that is, it doesn't say that he spoke against me, but it was written that Pavlovich's backups, in short, there was information written there that I was trading dumps. So they had a forum backup and a correspondence backup.
Pavlovich:
Well, yes. You just need to provide him with your backups, because there are a lot of people there who have gone over the edge. In short, don't save the correspondence under any circumstances.
BadB:
In general, yes. That is, this is the best thing.
Pavlovich:
The most, right?
BadB:
How do we get caught? Probably on the saved correspondence. Although on the other hand, guys, if you are going to Europe, yes, then save the correspondence. As a trump card, yes, well, well, well, these are not my words, this is what Igor said, yes, that is, they slapped someone, yes, I won’t do that, although what the hell, for example, carbonac, yes, let’s see, yes, there’s a big group, they slapped a person, you know, that is, I won’t even ask, yes, I’m just saying,
they slapped a person, yes, the guys, for example, helped him as much as they could, right away, they’re bastards, yes, I don’t know what his situation is now, but I think he feels great about himself, day there in the program for the defense of apologists.
Pavlovich:
Let’s then go over the questions that the viewers asked you during our previous three episodes. Okay, let’s do it. Let’s quickly go over it, do you comment if you have anything to say on the topic - is carding alive? Outline your opinion on carding today.
Enjoy reading!
Contents:
- How do I know if I've been taken to "Rocket Docket" court?
- How to "cut" the deadline?
- How many people has BadB "de-anonymized"?
- Igor Litvak: “There is a lot of information that could lead to a significant reduction in the term...”
- Useful information
- "Exotic" options for cooperation with special services
- Current types of cooperation
- How do you know if you've been ratted out?
- What is "Pacer" and myths?
- Litvak: "If you have very useful information, you can get "immunity""
- The John Gotti Mafia Case and Risk Removal
- Do American law enforcement keep their word?
- How does "cooperation" work, documentation
- When to understand whether to cooperate or not?
- Igor Litvak: “I know many employees from Secret Service”
- The Viktor Bout Case and the Film "Lord of War"
- Defended Smely, Drinkman and Nikulin
- Litigation practice of lawyer Litvak
- Marijuana Matters and the Saliva Test
- Who needs a lawyer?
- Carder BadB's work
- Carder Sergey Pavlovich's case
- To be continued...
How do I know if I've been sent to a "Rocket Docket" court?
Pavlovich:
How do I know if I've been sent to a Rocket Docket court, whether it's with expedited proceedings or not, that is, you say there aren't many of them in the US, how do I know?
Lawyer:
There's a Wikipedia page called Rocket Docket on Wikipedia, it explains everything about Rocket Docket, it lists all the courts, I think there are 6 or 7 federal courts, out of hundreds.
Pavlovich:
That's not enough, right?
Lawyer:
Those are very few courts, there are hundreds of federal courts in America, so there are 6, 7, or 8 of these Rocket Dockets, I think, or something like that. But you can easily look this up on the Internet.
How do I "cut" my sentence?
Pavlovich:
And if you start cooperating there, collaborating with the investigation, with the prosecutor's office, with the investigation, respectively, with all these special agents. What information is the American authorities primarily interested in so that it can be counted as cooperation and a significant part of the sentence can be cut off?
Lawyer:
A very good question, and this is a lawyer who deals with federal cases, who has handled large cooperators, this is the lawyer who can help with this, because many lawyers don’t know anything about this at all, they say I’m just cooperating, I’m leaking everything, everything will be fine. In general, how does it work? So, look, as I explained earlier, there is a process called 5k1. This is a letter that the prosecutor’s office gives. In order to get this letter, the prosecutor who is handling your case, he goes to what is called the Sentencing Committee.
The Sentencing Committee is in the prosecutor’s office where your prosecutor works. There are maybe 5 or 3 or 7 regular prosecutors, they sit in one room, the prosecutor comes with the agents who handled your case, and they tell them what you did, what results you were able to achieve for the prosecutor’s office.
And the sentencing committee, before they vote whether you get 5k1 or not, the three most important things they look at are the following. First. If as a result of your cooperation the prosecutor's office was able to make inditments against other people, that is, you went to the grand jury to testify, that is, for the sake of your cooperation, if an inditment was made, That's a very big thing.
That's the first thing. Second. If arrests were made for the sake of your cooperation, that's a very important thing. Third. If you were able to stop some, I don't know, hack that's happening now, that's ongoing, like a hack in progress.
Let's say you know that right now a million dollars are being sucked out of someone's bank every day. You came with this information, you said it, you stopped it. Cool. The fourth thing, also very important, which they consider very seriously before voting on 5K1 or not, I'm already saying more in cyber crimes, is connecting nicknames with real names.
Very often the FBI secret services have a bunch of nicknames. A bunch of nicknames, hundreds of nicknames, but they don't know who it is, what kind of person it is, where he lives, what country he is in, what his name is.
This is connecting a nickname with a real person or with a city or with an address, that's also it.
How many people did BadB "de-anonymize"?
BadB:
In this regard, I had it all in a row, they divided up all my ICQs, there were about three thousand.
Pavlovich:
There were people, yes, how many did you personally know, who was from where, well, personally I knew only a few, not personally, but who was from where, from which cities, how many did you hand over from your ICQ list of 3 thousand.
BadB:
Well, a lot, it's just that they, well, this one worked out great for them, that is, they were able to, because people, for example, sent me Western Union, and this Western Union, it was all written there, that is, it is generally unclear how many Americans, the village, especially Americans, they immediately slapped them down there.
Pavlovich:
Ah, well you mean buyers, right?
BadB:
Buyers, yes, but for them too, they don't care who to put in jail, in fact. Right? Well, yes, all they want is this case, they close it, you know, that is, the faster they close it, the more stars they get for themselves. The more people? Yes, the more people, the more, that is, it doesn’t really matter to them whether they closed a big cyber crime or a small one, the main thing for them is to formalize the case and that’s it.
Igor Litvak: “There is a lot of information that can lead to a significant reduction in the term...”
Lawyer:
Yes, yes, you are absolutely right, but these are the things that will give you the greatest chance to get a 5k1 letter, these four things that I kind of said earlier, renamed. But there is also other information, there is a lot of any information that can lead to a significant cut in the term, even if you don’t get 5k1, because even if the prosecutor’s office didn’t give you 5k1 and didn’t file it in court
for various reasons, maybe because they think that you didn’t provide such significant cooperation, maybe because the cooperation fell apart, there are different options, but even if you didn’t get 5k1, you still, when the verdict comes, you are a lawyer, your lawyer will always tell the judge about the cooperation.
And then the judge himself, despite the fact that the prosecutor does not ask this, the judge himself will give you some, as if he will cut off some term, some discount from the term that he was going to give.
Useful information.
Pavlovich:
For trying, right? He still helped, but it didn't work out 100%.
Lawyer:
You know, I'll tell you one thing. A lot of guys, when they're arrested, they start telling you different information. They call it, prosecutors call it, and agents call it intelligence. That is, it's like in Russian... Investigation. Investigation, yes. Investigation. That is, he said that, like, I may have seen this photo, there's this one, the 5th one saw it, the 10th one told me, he dumped everything else.
Yes, useful information, but the useful information itself won't end with a significant discount, 5k1 won't end. They have certain things that they look at. There was an induction, there were arrests, some crimes that were in progress were stopped, he revealed some individuals to us, who we can arrest in the future. These are the kinds of things that will very often be the result that you get under the FCIVA.
But again, even if there is none of this, and you want to cooperate, because you understand that there is no point in going to a jury trial, you will only get the maximum, you can cooperate. Give the information that you have. Sometimes, by the way, I will tell you a secret, sometimes the guys, when they are arrested, they are empty. They were doing something there, but they have no cooperation. And they are empty, but they want to cooperate, because at the jury trial you will get twenty and that's it.
They want to cooperate, and therefore, since I have a lot of connections in cyber, among the CIS, I represented many guys who have already returned, whom I know, many people, you can create a project, or even buy it sometimes. If a person is empty, but wants to cooperate, and he has money, you can buy a project or you can create something and bring it to them and thus also get a good discount.
"Exotic" options for cooperation with the special services.
Pavlovich:
What do you mean, we say, okay, tomorrow I've been in one topic or another, yes, I can't rat anyone out on it, even if I wanted to, but I say, let's create, using Albert Gonzalez as an example, let's create a VPN service that I advertise, where a million people will come, let's say, and then we'll close everyone there, in short. Either we'll create some kind of forum, or a cash-out service, something like that.
Is that what you mean or what?
Lawyer:
Sergey, you know, it's so funny. I've heard ideas like these so many times, clients have told me, let's offer a VPN, let's offer a drag service, where purchases will come from eBay. In general, everything they offered. And I brought it, offered it to prosecutors, and offered it to agents. They say it's too fancy for them. Such products are too fancy. Well, it's too many resources, VPN.
Well, like Zalez did. Listen, even one person said, let's make a hacker conference, I'll organize it. All the hackers will come to me for this conference, and the secret service will be there to take pictures of everyone. That is, everything they offered, anything. But, as a rule, usually... - Did they offer transportation too? - Stop it. There are different exceptions, of course. There are different situations, but usually they will say that it's too fancy for them.
Because you have to understand, it's a huge bureaucracy. They have a ton of other things to do besides cyber. Organizing some kind of VPN service, there, first of all, other legal issues that need to be understood, can the FBI do this or not. Maybe some innocent person will install a VPN on himself.
In general, there are many moments there that are so fancy, like exotic, they often call them, they say, Igor, this is very exotic, this is very exotic. What are you saying, Igor, this won’t work for us.
Current types of cooperation.
Pavlovich:
What can you really do?
Lawyer:
I’ll explain. You can buy a project, I mean, some name, turn someone in, someone. Or you know, let’s say you have money, and you tell me, Igor, come on, find someone who can work with me, help me.
BadB:
No, for example, now there is, for example, some kind of cashing out, right? And the person says, like, this kind of crap, right? Or he says, let’s say, I know, yes, the information is such that this kind of group, yes, it is going to do this and that, you know? That is, this kind of information. So if you don’t know anything, you can...
Pavlovich:
Yes!
BadB:
No, if it is impossible, they buy this information from someone else and give it to the person, that is, his channel in which he works, they buy information from such people and give it to the person with whom he works. In short, I did not understand anything, now you.
Lawyer:
This is one example. No, what Vlad said is very relevant. Let's say if someone was arrested, he is empty, there is no cooperation, he needs to turn in someone. Or he needs to turn in so that an indictment can be made on him. Then, if a person has financial resources, such information can be bought, and then bring it to the prosecutor's office, as if it came from you. There are again various nuances, the prosecutor's office cannot know that it was bought, because if they find out that you bought it, they will not count anything against you.
Pavlovich:
In short, cool, you need to open a business, sell some criminal stories. A criminal story that is 3 years in prison, minus 3 years in prison, there, 20 thousand dollars.
BadB:
Well, roughly, yes. That is, up to the point that, well, people created, I know that people created these stories, out of nothing, yes. For example, a person actually scanned the Internet, found a hole, came up with a nickname and under this fake nickname made this hole, you know, that is, he wrote somewhere on some cool forums, I won’t say about this, yes, that is, he made this hole and, by the way, sold it to this same, well, that is, in order to get this person
who is sitting to whom he sold, who gave him money, out, that is, well, I’ve heard such stories.
Lawyer:
Yes, there is another such thing and another topic that I saw, that if a person wants to buy a project, you can buy some closed database from some forum, a hacking forum. And there are IP addresses and nicknames and everything else. You buy this database, download it, then give this database to the prosecutor’s office and agents. From this, you can also do, as it were, weld a cooperation. Therefore, such options exist.
If the person is empty, call me, I can’t guarantee or promise anything, but of course I’ll try.
How do you know that you’ve been ratted out?
Pavlovich:
Well, let’s ask Igor, what should you do if, for example, the person you collaborated with was doing some business on the Internet, well, your accomplice, let’s say, if he’s arrested, is it possible to somehow check whether he’s ratted you out or not, that is, is it dangerous for you to travel outside of Russia, Ukraine, or not, how can you check this? But you know that he’s already been arrested.
Lawyer:
It’s impossible to check this formally. My only advice, if your partner has been arrested for some crime, my advice is to assume that you’ve been ratted out. How can you prove this? Only a person can do this if he’s arrested himself, and he gets Discover, he gets this database, evidence against him, and in this database he can see who ratted him out, and how he was found, and everything else.
Well, when your partner has been arrested, it’s usually, usually impossible to say whether he’s ratted you out or not.
There were cases, there were cases when there were leaks to the press, I will not say names now, but there were cases when people were arrested, there was one case when there was a secret service agent, he then left this secret service, during the cooperation he went into private practice and gave an interview to one newspaper that the person was cooperating, and this came out to the public, but this is very rare.
What is "Pacer" and myths?
Lawyer:
On Pacer, I very often heard, people tell me, well, how so, I was on Pacer, I don't have it on Pacer, why is there an indite on me?
Pavlovich:
What is Pacer? Let's explain to our viewers.
Lawyer:
In America, the federal system has a database, an interface called Pacer. So, everything that happens in a federal court, or in a civil case, or in a criminal case, it doesn’t matter, all the papers that are submitted, all the filings, all the decisions, it is sent by the court to this Pacer. There are also indictments, indictments, felony complaints, that is, in theory, in theory, if there is a criminal case against a person, in theory he can go to Pacer and kind of enter his name, by the way, it is a public database, any person, including in Russia, can register for him and do kind of searching, kind of look for, there is a search engine there.
They can’t send a flash drive only in the States now. I had a lot of people who said, well, how come I was arrested, and I was on Pacer, and my name was not on Pacer. I thought everything was fine, why did we arrest me in Italy, for example. So, it is necessary, it is very important to understand that when the inditment, the grand jury, when they issue an inditment before the arrest, before the arrest, as a rule, in 99% of cases this inditment is classified.
It will not be in any database, it will not be on Pacer. And therefore this myth that if you are not on Pacer, then everything is fine, forget about this myth.
BadB:
Yes, but, Igor, I can argue here a little, there is, for example, in my case, yes, when I was arrested, you look at your accomplice, you don’t look at yourself, you will never find him there, but you look at your arrested accomplice, and for me, for example, yes, when a person goes to cooperate, especially when this is an important figure, a case sealed appears, that is, they do not show it further, yes, information is not given out, the case is classified, that is, all information and all proceedings, they are closed, that is, if I see that the case is sealed, this automatically tells me that the person went to cooperate, this means that I am screwed, yes, if I am his partner, that’s all, in my opinion, the logic is very good.
Lawyer:
If you have a codefendant, that is, a defendant who is involved in the same indictment, an accomplice in the same case, who is the same indictment, if you were arrested and the other person was not arrested, when they declassify the indictment, because they have to do it, although there are cases when even after the arrest
the indictment is not declassified, but if for certain reasons after the arrest your indictment was declassified, then you can see your co-defendants in this indictment. But again, I am not talking about this case, when there is a co-defendant who is involved in the same criminal case with you. I am simply saying, here is one against you, you don’t know, here is a person sitting, Igor Litvak, I want to go to Italy, I don’t know whether there is a criminal case against me in America or not.
And I was often told, how, why was I arrested? I checked on Pacer, there was nothing on Pacer. And I say, well man, are you serious? I have never seen anything more stupid. Are you really going to think that the fact that a person is wanted and they want to arrest him, will be publicly put on the Internet? Never in my life. Thus, not a single hacker would ever be arrested. So remember this and do not think that because you are not on the Internet, no one leaked you.
BadB:
Well, yes, there were always wonlogs through him, it did not help him. He had 10 accounts in Pacer and on top of that Acurint, it did not help him at all.
Lawyer:
It did not help him, or anyone else who fell for this thing. And I am shocked, to be honest, it is logical to think, You meet guys who are the smartest people in Kiba, talented people. I worked with people who, if they used their talent for peaceful purposes, probably would have made Russian bulls. But for some reason they can't figure out that this won't happen in Pacer.
And a lot of guys get caught doing this.
Litvak: "If you have really useful information, you can get "immunity.""
Pavlovich:
Well, if such information, for example, is confirmed, that you were leaked, let's say I'm in Russia, for example, and my accomplice or just someone I did some business with, bought or sold something from him, he, let's say, was detained and extradited to the USA. So what, in my opinion, is the best action for me to take at this point?
Lawyer:
You know, there are many different options. The first thing I would advise is not to erase everything right away. That is, I very often see when one is arrested, and the entire group with which he worked, which is at large, begins to erase everything, remove this entire database, erase all emails, everything, as if to cover their tracks and everything, and everything else. And my advice, wait, yes, first... Why is it bad? Because if you then start cooperating, then, and the fact that you started erasing all this and everything else before cooperating, it may not look very good in court.
In general, if you know, a person knows that he has a criminal case in America, or he knows that his client was arrested. A suspect. A partner, sorry. A partner who can leak it. A person has many different options. I have many cases when I was hired by people from the CIS who have cases active in America, who are not under arrest, and to close this case.
Well, this is a slightly different option, much more serious, I say, than what you and I want to do, but the fact is that people have serious indictments, they have serious terms there, and they, let's say, are not in Russia, they are in some third country, they are afraid to go somewhere. They call me, we can start cooperation if the person wants it before arriving in the States.
You can organize meetings with the prosecutor's office, you can organize meetings with agents, start cooperation there. Then, in this way, then, if you have very cool information, very cool, again I want to repeat, very cool, you can try for immunity. Immunity is very rarely given, very rarely. Everyone wants it, but almost no one gets it. There is such a very famous case, just as an example.
The case of mafioso John Gotti and the removal of risks.
Lawyer:
If you know, there was such a mafioso John Gatti. In New York, you have probably heard of him. In New York, the prosecutor's office wanted to put him in prison for a long time. There were two jury trials. He won in both, that is, in one they threatened witnesses, the mafia, in the other, so he won two jury trials.
And the prosecutor's office couldn't put him in jail, and they still came to an agreement, there was one killer there who killed people for money, I think he killed 27 people, his name was Sammy Dybulov. And he testified against Dzhangati at the third jury trial, and he was given immunity for it. They changed his identity, he was there in the witness protection program. So what's the point? You can always try to get immunity.
You have nothing to lose. It will work, it will work, cool. You will get immunity, sign a special document with the government that you have immunity. You calmly come to America, you don't have to worry about anything. Your criminal case is sort of closed. You cooperate and go home calmly. But again, this is very, very rare. I say again, in order to get immunity, something must be so grandiose, something that the prosecutor's office or agents themselves will never be able to get.
Therefore, we always check this point. If immunity is not suitable, or they do not want to give it, or there is no such information for this, then you can go the traditional way, sometimes you can make a deal even before coming to the States, at least try.
Start cooperation via the Internet, via video, meetings, cooperate there for several months, conclude cooperation and grimming, conclude some kind of pli and grimming in advance. That is, in this way, when a person goes to America, he will already know approximately what he is threatened with. Thus, we kind of remove certain risks.
And this is one point. Another point, of course, is the traditional moment, what all people do when you come here, either voluntarily or because you were extradited, and a criminal case begins. But people who are sitting in the CIS, there are options. So call, especially if you have good information that the Americans need, there are definitely options.
Do American law enforcement keep their word?
BadB:
Igor, I am sure many people have this question now. For example, Russian trash, yes, they have such a concept as an officer's word, honor, you understand? They don't have that. We, trash, have money.
Pavlovich:
I also wanted to ask.
BadB:
Shoulder straps, money, you know? That is, money conquers evil, of course, but they just don’t have it, they sell everything for money. They have no honor, no conscience. How much can you trust American cops? That is, I say, I will cooperate with you. They usually say we don’t give guarantees. But judging by everything, you and I will come to an agreement, you’re a good guy. How much can you trust them? How often do they keep their word or not?
Or have you had any cases in your practice where they deceived anyone at all?
Lawyer:
There were cases when they said one thing and did another. There were cases when I caught them in a lie. I recently had a very big high-profile case, it was also written about in the press, Evgeny Bokov, one guy was extradited from Estonia. He was accused of creating Fentanyl, a very strong drug, and importing it to the USA.
And he was arrested in Estonia, he spent 8 months in isolation there before extradition, then he was brought to America. And I remember when he hired me, I received this database date, like a database, like evidence from the prosecutor's office, and before I started looking at it, I did not meet with her, and I ...
When we met, they told me the following. We know everything about your client, we have all the evidence, he must take the blame, if he does not take it, it will be like snapping a finger to prove his guilt, that he is guilty, okay, good, no problem, and the client says to me, Igor, I don’t know what they are talking about at all, but someone says crazy, okay, I remember it was a year ago in August, I went to Odessa, I have relatives in Ukraine, I sat there for three weeks watching all these videos, wiretaps, correspondence, and I was shocked.
This is the first time in 10 years that I have been doing this, I was shocked that what they told me, there was absolutely nothing there. That is, he was accused of creating Fentanyl. The man was never at a single meeting where this was discussed. He never even said the word Fentanyl. And they arrested him for creating Fentanyl, and this is an article where the minimum term, this is a mandatory minimum, 10 years.
That is, even if a person admitted guilt, copped, the judge cannot give you less than ten. And I will tell you honestly, prosecutors, they are lawyers. They have the same license as me, the rules of ethics are the same, for lawyers or prosecutors.
I myself, as I said earlier, did an internship in the prosecutor's office, I have friends who are prosecutors, I communicate with them sometimes, but this is the first time I've seen something like this, when the prosecutor tells me "your client must plead guilty to fentanyl, where the minimum sentence is 10 years, and we will prove it in three minutes, if he doesn't take it, or go to a jury trial." And when I had already looked through this entire database, I came back to them and said "Guys, we are going to a jury trial, because there is nothing here", only then they said "Okay, okay".
They withdrew this article, and we made a deal there with a minimum sentence, he is now going home on January 6, in 2 weeks. So, in general, here's your question, in principle, there is no such thing as corruption for money here. To buy a prosecutor or a police officer, or an agent for money, that's what I mean... if it happens, then it is an exception, it is not the rule.
This is very, very rare, and when it happens, it is written about in the news in all the newspapers.
How does "cooperation" work, documentation.
Pavlovich:
No, we are not talking about corruption, but what, for example, at the beginning, let's say, I was extradited tomorrow, I was caught in the Netherlands, for example, in my personal life, yes, and extradited to the States, so, and they say, listen, let's cooperate here and there, I say, well, okay, let's work, they say something like, if you do this, this and that, you will get three years there, for example, I speak by hand, and I do it in principle almost in full, something I can no longer do for objective reasons, which I would even like to
do. And I do almost everything that they ask of me. And then they do not fulfill their deal and they give me 15 years there. This is somehow recorded on paper, that is, their promises and what I must do. Or they lie, let's say, quite often. How to understand this line?
Lawyer:
Okay, I'll explain how it works. And I'm sure Vlad knows about it too. So, when a person wants to cooperate, he first meets a little, lets the agents know that you have some useful information, and then, when you have already interested them in your cooperation, such a document is signed. It's called a Cooperation Agreement. This is a contract between both parties, between the defense and the defendant, and between the prosecutor's office and the agents.
In this contract, there are different things to discuss, but the most important thing is that in this contract, there is a kind of paragraph. This paragraph says the following. So, if you are a defendant, during your cooperation you were truthful, gave us everything we needed, and, well, this is the key phrase.
If in our discretion, that is, if in our opinion you gave us substantial assistance, that is, in our discretion you gave a substantial assistance, that is, they decide, not now, they decide before the verdict itself, which could be in 2-3 days.
Speaker 3:
They do prosecutors when they get together with all these agents they discuss yes.
Lawyer:
Therefore you sign this contract which says that if they decide that before the sentence which will be in 2 3 5 years you gave significant assistance they will then give you some discount or after 5 to 1 or some other home departure I want to tell one thing to remember once and for all to all your listeners.
When some agent or prosecutor at the beginning of cooperation tells you, well if you cooperate, everything will be fine, they usually do not say some terms, some numbers, 3-4 years, they usually say, well everything will be fine, do not worry, everything will be cool, help us, we will help you too. Sometimes it is true, sometimes it is not. But never Yes, do not believe them. Do not believe them. They sometimes tell the truth. That is, they deceive, right? They can. They can. They can absolutely. They can absolutely.
They can... You can... A person can work like that for 3 years, go 3 times a week from 9 to 5, sit on forums for 3 years, and then they will say, well, you know, we didn't intait anyone, no one was arrested, we won't give you 5k1, because in our opinion it wasn't that much help, we'll ask you for some kind of discount. I understand what I told you three years ago, but so much has happened since then, and then, maybe, the agent left, maybe, your prosecutor changed.
So, all these promises that they tell you at the beginning, I would look at them with a big grain of salt, as they say here.
When to understand whether to cooperate or not?
Pavlovich:
How to understand that line, when to cooperate or not to cooperate? How to understand? That is, only after consulting a lawyer or what?
BadB:
What is the best way to act in such a case? For example, for me it was very scary when to take a step, to give up this password. But in my case they did not deceive me, in my case I deceived them even more, because I did not give them all the information that could have been done and I chose, that is, well, I just have a very good memory in general, and I remember very well what I said and what I did not say and that is precisely my
memory, it did not give, that is, they searched very well with such cross-questions, yes, they tried to find, they tried to find whether I was deceiving them, that is, asking questions, asking but because I remember it, I kept it in my head, that is, all these conversations, they never caught me in a lie during all this time, that is, I did not lie to them, in fact, I could not tell everything if I knew, for example, about someone, I just did not talk about him and well, I said that I knew less, for example
or I say yes I know this person but I don't know let's say in real life I know that they don't know that you know and that is just for those who have a good memory but until the last moment I didn't know why and what I would get you know that is but in my case they kept their word and they gave me 5k1 and I got it but only because a lot of people really suffered from me and it was very difficult to hide it here you know, especially, well, that is such a situation.
Lawyer:
Look, Sergey asked an interesting question, how to know this line. And to me, in my, in general, as I see it, when a person gets into such a situation, he has three choices, he has a choice either you go to a jury trial, where if you lose, you will get hit on the head to the maximum, or take a deal to accept guilt without cooperation, or accept guilt with cooperation.
And also look at yourself, look, even if you don’t know in advance that cooperation will give you some significant discount from the prosecutor’s office, most of the guys, they are in such a situation that despite this, they will still cooperate. Because taking a chance is better than nothing. What other options? Another option is to go to a jury trial, if he knows that he will lose, because he was arrested with a computer, there are witnesses, get 30 years. Okay, that’s not an option. The second option is to take a deal without cooperation, get fifteen. For most people, this is also not an option.
Then the third option is to cooperate. Despite the fact that you can’t know in advance in most cases what kind of loan you will receive, what cut from the term you cannot know in advance, despite this, most of the guys who want to cooperate will still cooperate. What do they have to lose? They have nothing to lose. Well, okay, it will work out, it won’t work out.
If cooperation doesn't work, at least we'll go to the judge and at least tell the judge about all this with the hope that the judge will give you some kind of discount based on the fact that you...
BadB:
They say that a lot depends on the lawyer, how he negotiates, right?
Lawyer:
A lot depends on the lawyer. Having the right lawyer in such cases, in cooperation or going to a jury trial, is simply, as we say, priceless. It is necessary, because the lawyer... And everything else is a master card? Well, of course, a lot depends, if cooperation is conducted on what the person has. If the person is empty, then, excuse me, no matter how cool a lawyer I am, I can't do anything, just take the deal and go to a jury trial.
But if a person has information and wants to go the way of cooperation, what we are discussing today, a lawyer can help a lot, he can tell you how to copy correctly, what projects to give, how to give them, he can tell you what deal is good and what deal is bad.
Up to the point that, for example, you know some agents, right,
BadB:
You know, is this a good agent or a bastard, maybe someone has cheated before.
Igor Litvak: "I know a lot of Secret Service employees."
Lawyer:
Vlad, I was at a Secret Service conference, a service where there were, I think, 400 or 500 agents, we had a huge hall in college, Baruch College. And I gave a speech there. A small one, really. - And were there big mirrors in the toilets? - That's why the agents know me. I even have agents who were agents before, left the Secret Service and call me to get a job with me there, like a private investigator or something like that.
That's why I know a lot of agents from the FBI, from the Secret Service, and that's why a lawyer can, of course, be of great help for many, many reasons.
The Viktor Bout case and the film "Lord of War."
Pavlovich:
And what about Bout, this Viktor Bout, who served as the prototype for the film "Lord of War", what the hell did he get in the US then, how much was it, 30 or 25 thousand?
BadB:
Because this is a political case in general, this is a purely political case.
Lawyer:
You know, Bout is an interesting case. Of course, when I was not involved in this case, I did not participate in it in any way, but I read about it, I was interested. And during the verdict, the judge said something interesting during the verdict. The thing is that Bout has an article under which he... He also had a jury trial. He had a jury trial, he lost it, and the article under which he lost, there was a mandatory minimum, it was a minimum term, in my opinion, if I'm not mistaken, 25 years.
And during the verdict, Bout's defense team, they made a very long speech there, they argued that the case was very weak, there were a lot of problems with this criminal case. But the judge said during the sentencing, well, Viktor Bout, I understand you, he says, I sympathize with you.
I, maybe, if I could, would have given you a much shorter sentence, but there was a minimum mandate of 25 years. And so the judge, she simply tells him, you have to understand me, I can’t, by law I can’t give you less than the sentence they give you. And she gave him the minimum sentence.
He defended Smely, Drinkman and Nikulin.
Pavlovich:
I understand. And who of ours, yes, of the big names, did you defend? You just now, well, we were talking, you defended Smely, defended Skorp Drinkman, Nikulin, who else did you defend, so we know? You defended a psycho too, right?
Lawyer:
And you can generally go to my website nyccrime.Com or just google me, and all my big cases on the Internet, on my website can be found very easily.
Judicial practice of lawyer Litvak.
Pavlovich:
And what do you get from your legal practice, yes, you work there, I don’t know, let’s say with drug lords, with arms dealers, with pimps, for example, with cybercriminals, what interests you most there and what you like and at the same time you manage to achieve some successes and compromises.
Lawyer:
You know, I like everything except drunk driving, that’s what I do: murder and sexual crimes, rape, kidnapping, I do everything, everything, everything. Have you done any pedophiles? No pedophiles yet, not yet.
BadB:
There are a lot of them, it’s just that there, probably the first is drug trafficking, all the blacks are in there, probably 70%, how many, 80% of them are in there for drug trafficking. And the second category in American prisons is pedophiles. Tell me, yes, a confirmed word.
Pavlovich:
Are they roosters there or not? There are no roosters, roosters only rooster at their own discretion.
Lawyer:
You know, in American prisons there are actually a lot of people on drug charges. As for pedophiles, you know, I had one case where a wife accused her husband of sort of picking a seven-year-old boy, well, their son, in the butt with his finger. We had a case like that. It ended up being untrue.
It ended up being her making it up. It was a standard case. And then all the charges were dropped. They just had a conflict with each other. Both they and the wife decided to make up such a story. We fought for a very long time. There was an investigation and everything else. So, look, you have to understand that when a person is accused of something, most of the time it is correct. But there are also many, many cases, I personally see this very often, when the prosecutor's office or agents or the police make mistakes.
Like in the Shawshank Redemption? Something like that, yes. They make mistakes, they arrest innocent people, and then, of course, a lawyer who is good at this is simply priceless, for him to defend you and prove your innocence. But I, in principle, do everything. Well, as I said before, of course, I am most famous for my federal, large federal cases. In general, on extradition, people who are extradited, it is usually either cyber, or drugs, or money laundering, or some kind of financial fraud.
People who are extradited, usually under these articles. And on these articles, of course, I have a lot of experience and work a lot.
Pavlovich:
Well, yes, in short, the link is in the description, you will drive 5000 dollars. And listen, okay, you said drunk driving, you do not defend, or you just do not like it.
Lawyer:
And I have a couple of drunk driving cases, but that's not my thing. They really like drunk driving. If you need to have special technical knowledge of how the machine that's being tested works, you need to have a scientific background. That's why I usually don't deal with drunk driving.
Marijuana cases and saliva test.
Pavlovich:
And marijuana while driving?
Lawyer:
Here in New York, you know, marijuana is already becoming legal almost all over America. Now, marijuana was recently legalized in New Jersey. I'll tell you honestly, when I started practicing, I had a ton of cases, I had a ton of cases on people who were arrested for Now, in general, the last case for marijuana, maybe, was there, I don't know, 4 years ago. Pavlovich:
But
you can't drive a car under the influence of marijuana, right, of course?
Lawyer:
No, but it's very difficult to catch a person. Well, officially, of course, no, you can't. What, they don't give pee tests anymore or what? What, what?
BadB:
The police don't give pee tests anymore, they don't give them, they don't have any more? They don't give you a pee test to pee in a glass?
Lawyer:
No, no, there is a new topic that has come out by the way, I don’t know if you’ve heard, no, by the way, it’s not very widespread now, but there is a saliva test, that is, you have to drag the police to a special device and spit it right next to your car when they stop you, it’s right for you, if he smells marijuana in the car, for example, he gives you a test and you spit on this thing, it goes on for a couple of minutes and tells you what the THC level was.
That’s what exists. But it’s not very widespread. The police are generally neutral about this, right? Again, they can arrest you for this, but these are not federal cases, these are minor state cases, which don’t require much work.
Who needs a lawyer?
Pavlovich:
Well, I understand. So what if we’re talking about federal cases and so on? That is, we’ve just talked about carders, all kinds of cybercriminals, hackers, carders, arms dealers, drug dealers. Who else would benefit from an American lawyer?
BadB:
Secret discounter, connect, yes, right away.
Lawyer:
Look, if you have a criminal case, then in any criminal case a lawyer will help you, even if it is not the coolest lawyer who understands, he will help you somehow, so my advice, in general my advice, if you are accused of something, you are threatened, this is some serious case, not some kind of
peed in the park after 12 I say what is serious before 10 even where some serious term is threatened always call a lawyer in any case talk to him even if you do not find.
Pavlovich:
Well, at least talk and communicate well I'll see I'll see how you help me then I'll tell but this will be on the channel if if Igor helps me yes then the next next season we will not spend behind bars but I hope there in California yes I will be filming these life maybe at least in Bali. Yes, fabulous Bali. Fabulous Bali. The main thing is not to be deceived fabulously.
The case of the BadB carder.
Pavlovich:
In short, let's say you came to America, who did you rat out, that is.
BadB:
Who did I rat out?
Pavlovich:
I ratted out the dump buyers.
BadB:
Well, yes, the buyers right away were those with whom I worked, that is, the most interesting, the most important thing was Who did you work with the most? With Johnny Hell, with Psycho, with me, with someone? Well, with Johnny Hell, with Psycho, of course, I went straight away. They surprised me, they just killed me. I was like, you know, sitting there, scratching my balls, in short, to rat out, not to rat out. Well, as if I were starting to talk, yes, that is, they knew about him, they immediately turned him in. They killed me, in short, they say, this is, in short, track 2, Bulba. I say, come on.
And you didn't know? I didn't know, I didn't know, that is, I suspected, I thought, in short.
Pavlovich:
We only worked with him under Psycho, Psycho, Psycho Support there/.
BadB:
Then he didn't work with anyone, he worked with some people. He worked with Skorpo later, but he really limited his circle of communication when he started working under Bulba. Before that, he was afraid of me, then when I was closed, he started more... By the way, in fact, a very large longread will be published on my site now
Pavlovich:
Specifically about Seleznev, so look Yes, the link is in the description cybersec.org, right? Yes, he stole the domain from Bukh, in short, corporately.
BadB:
Why stole it? This is my idea from one more person One person doesn't object, that is, I'm doing this for now.
Pavlovich:
Okay, I turned in the buyers of dumps, turned in all my colleagues-sellers of dumps, right? Okay Who else?
BadB:
That's it, who else is there to turn in, if I only worked with dumps.
Lawyer:
Vlad, I have a question, did you have 5k1? Yes. You had 5k1, and you got 7.5 with 5k1?
BadB:
Yes, I had 5k1 officially. They said, you know who they accepted. They said that thanks to Khorokhorin, they managed to strengthen the testimony against this person. This person is angry with me, he doesn’t even talk to me now and says, I don’t know how fair or unfair, that I’m a jerk, you know, and that’s why it’s like this,
what to do, it’s not us, life is like that, I want to look at everyone in such a situation, when they find themselves and when they tell you 56 years old or let’s talk, I don’t know, heroes.
Case of carder Sergei Pavlovich.
Pavlovich:
Not enough actually, I’m not a hero, I’ll say it right away. You see, it was easier for me, when I had my case, this is what you are talking about, there is this agriculturism on cooperation before the cooperation agreement where everything is spelled out in Russian realities, but in the CIS post-Soviet union there is no such thing, in the Belarusian Criminal Code this is Article 69, something like assistance to the investigation sounds and there are about 20 points there about how
you can help the investigation like compensation for damages reconciliation there and to hand over someone there still active assistance in solving the crime and from these 20 figuratively points when you have 3 at least 3 will be collected then they give you this article but it is not in writing that is you are already cooperating with them before you start handing over someone else something but you are not sure that the investigator will write it for you but if he writes here he gave it to me to read he wrote thank God I did not have
to I was not in such a situation as you yes thank God I was never given a choice there to hand over these or not to hand over, it was easier for me, they say well we see there from the surviving correspondence someone bought dumps, they say there is no point in denying it, well and I say that I bought dumps there from Niko there is a psycho for example, who is he, well they did not care at all who he is, where is he from, I say yes I don’t know where from, well he speaks Russian, that is, well from Russia probably there, I don’t know, from Ukraine, and that’s it, and I basically just admitted my guilt
and you know, it’s not like I helped them, or turned someone in, but I just made their job easier, he says, I don’t even care about sending these requests back and forth, somewhere under a VPN, why should I send these papers for a year? You just admit, you have to, I don’t know how it is in America, when you admit your guilt, you have to tell the court that I did this and that, this and that, otherwise suddenly you took someone else’s guilt upon yourself for some reason, you
Lawyer:
everyone threatened. Yes, yes, yes. It’s like that in America too, right? It’s called plea elocution. 100%. It’s the same in America.
Pavlovich:
Well, it turns out that I admitted it, and until the case was closed I wasn’t sure that he would keep his promise. But, as we understand, yes, although in America you also sign this cooperative aggregation, but still most of it happens on trust, right?
Lawyer:
Cooperative aggregation, yes, because before the verdict you don’t know that you will receive some kind of loan on the basis of this cooperation and you will receive it. Therefore, you sign, you hope that the cooperation And that the prosecutor’s office will consider this cooperation significant. And as I said earlier, what they look at most importantly is indiments, arrests, stopping criminal cases in progress and connecting nicknames with real individuals.
They look at other things too, but this is the most important thing.
Pavlovich:
Well, that’s what happened to me, when they apply this article 69 of the Criminal Code to me, it means that the maximum is taken under your article. I had from 3 to 10 there, the maximum is taken and they can’t give you more than half, that is, if they applied this to you, like you have 5k1, and we have 69, more than 5, that is, half the term, the maximum he couldn’t give me, yes.
BadB:
You need to get your backups somewhere, I'll tell you this, because in my case, for example, it says that these backups were yes, that is, it doesn't say that he spoke against me, but it was written that Pavlovich's backups, in short, there was information written there that I was trading dumps. So they had a forum backup and a correspondence backup.
Pavlovich:
Well, yes. You just need to provide him with your backups, because there are a lot of people there who have gone over the edge. In short, don't save the correspondence under any circumstances.
BadB:
In general, yes. That is, this is the best thing.
Pavlovich:
The most, right?
BadB:
How do we get caught? Probably on the saved correspondence. Although on the other hand, guys, if you are going to Europe, yes, then save the correspondence. As a trump card, yes, well, well, well, these are not my words, this is what Igor said, yes, that is, they slapped someone, yes, I won’t do that, although what the hell, for example, carbonac, yes, let’s see, yes, there’s a big group, they slapped a person, you know, that is, I won’t even ask, yes, I’m just saying,
they slapped a person, yes, the guys, for example, helped him as much as they could, right away, they’re bastards, yes, I don’t know what his situation is now, but I think he feels great about himself, day there in the program for the defense of apologists.
Pavlovich:
Let’s then go over the questions that the viewers asked you during our previous three episodes. Okay, let’s do it. Let’s quickly go over it, do you comment if you have anything to say on the topic - is carding alive? Outline your opinion on carding today.
