Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Lin Mun Poo detention letter

Lin Mun Poo detention letter

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,052|Likes:
Published by IDG News Service
A letter in support of the U.S. DoJ.'s motion for permanent detention filed Nov. 18 in the case of Lin Mun Poo. He is accused of hacking into several U.S. financial institutions, including the Fed, and stealing 400,000 debit and credit card numbers.
A letter in support of the U.S. DoJ.'s motion for permanent detention filed Nov. 18 in the case of Lin Mun Poo. He is accused of hacking into several U.S. financial institutions, including the Fed, and stealing 400,000 debit and credit card numbers.

More info:

Published by: IDG News Service on Nov 18, 2010
Copyright:Public Domain


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF or read online from Scribd
See more
See less


U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney Eastern District of New York 
271 Cadman Plaza East 
 Brooklyn, New York 11201
November 18, 2010VIA FAXThe Honorable Dora L. IrizarryUnited States District JudgeEastern District of New York225 Cadman Plaza EastBrooklyn, New York 11201Re:United States v. Lin Mun PooCriminal Docket No. 10-891 (DLI) (ALC)Dear Judge Irizarry:The government respectfully submits this letter insupport of its motion for a permanent order of detention of thedefendant Lin Mun Poo. On November 18, 2010, a Grand Jury in theEastern District of New York returned the attached four-countindictment charging the defendant with access device fraud andaggravated identity theft (Counts One and Two), as well as twocounts involving computer “hacking” – specifically, unauthorizedcomputer access and transmission of malicious code involving acomputer network of the Federal Reserve Bank (Counts Three andFour). As explained below, the government has also obtainedextensive evidence of the defendant’s criminal hacking activitytargeting the national security, military and financial sectorsof the United States.The defendant, a Malaysian citizen, was arrested on acomplaint in Brooklyn, New York on October 21, 2010, shortlyafter his arrival at John F. Kennedy International Airport(“JFK”) from Europe. At the defendant’s arraignment on October22, 2010, United States Magistrate Judge Viktor V. Pohorelskyentered a permanent order of detention with leave to make anapplication for bail. Should the defendant apply for pretrialrelease when he is arraigned on the indictment or at his initialappearance before the Court, the government respectfully submitsthat the defendant poses a serious risk of flight and shouldremain in pretrial detention.
Factual ProfferThe government proffers the following facts concerningthe charges at issue and pretrial detention. See United Statesv. LaFontaine, 210 F.3d 125, 130-31 (2d Cir. 2000) (thegovernment is entitled to proceed by proffer in a detentionhearing); United States v. Ferranti, 66 F.3d 540, 542 (2d Cir.1995) (same); United States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1145 (2dCir. 1986) (same). These facts are relevant to three of thefactors to be considered in the detention analysis under the BailReform Act: (1) the nature and circumstances of the crimescharged, (2) the history and characteristics of the defendant,including his risk of flight, and (3) the evidence of thedefendant’s guilt. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).I.Nature and Circumstances of Crimes Charged and theEvidence of the Defendant’s GuiltThe government’s evidence of the defendant’s guilt ofthe charged crimes, as well as uncharged criminal activity,demonstrates his position as an extremely sophisticated anddangerous computer hacker. At the time of the defendant’sarrest, Secret Service agents seized a heavily encrypted laptopcomputer that was in his possession. This computer contained amassive quantity of stolen financial account data and personalidentifying information, including more than 400,000 credit card,debit card and bank account numbers, in violation of 18 U.S.C.§§ 1029 and 1028A (Counts One and Two).In his post-arrest statement, the defendant admittedcompromising the computer servers of a number of major financialinstitutions and companies. For example, the defendant admittedthat he compromised a computer network of the Federal ReserveBank (“FRB”) by exploiting a vulnerability he found within theirsecure system. The FRB in Cleveland, Ohio has confirmed that anFRB computer network was hacked in approximately June 2010,resulting in thousands of dollars in damages, affecting ten ormore FRB computers, and forming the basis for Counts Three andFour.The defendant’s seized computer also contains evidenceof additional and very significant hacking activity. Forexample, the defendant possessed data illegally obtained from thecomputer network of FedComp, a data processor for various creditunions in the United States. By hacking into the FedComp system,the defendant had unauthorized access to the data of theFiremen’s Association of the State of New York Federal CreditUnion and the Mercer County New Jersey Teachers’ Federal Credit2
Union, among other victims. The defendant also admitted tocompromising the computer networks of several major internationalbanks and companies, and admitted earning money by finding andexploiting network vulnerabilities or trading and selling theinformation contained therein.The defendant has not limited his criminal conduct tocompromising financial institutions. The government has obtainedevidence that his cybercrime activities extend to the nationalsecurity sector. For example, in approximately August 2010, thedefendant hacked into the secure computer system of a majorDepartment of Defense contractor, which provides systemsmanagement for military transport and other highly sensitivemilitary operations. These are but a few examples of thegovernment’s evidence of the defendant’s criminal hackingactivity targeting the United States’ financial and nationalsecurity sectors.II.History and Characteristics of the Defendant andRisk of FlightThe defendant is a resident and citizen of Malaysia.He traveled to the United States from Malaysia via Europe on around-trip ticket, with a planned return date to Malaysia ofNovember 22, 2010. The government is not aware of any family orprofessional ties to the United States or New York. Indeed, thedefendant appears to have traveled to the United States for thesole purpose of engaging in criminal activity; within hours ofhis arrival at JFK on October 21, 2010, United States SecretService agents observed the defendant selling stolen credit cardnumbers for $1,000 at a diner in Brooklyn and arrested himshortly thereafter. In his post-arrest statement, the defendantadmitted that the primary purpose of his journey to the UnitedStates was to meet with an individual who the defendant believedwas capable of regularly providing the defendant with a largevolume of stolen card numbers and personal identificationnumbers, which the defendant said he planned to use to withdrawcash from automated teller machines.The defendant’s lack of any non-criminal ties to theUnited States and his return plane ticket to Malaysia aresufficient to demonstrate his severe flight risk. Moreover, thedefendant has seemingly limitless unauthorized access tofinancial accounts and identity information from around theworld, which would enable him to easily obtain financialresources and a new identity to facilitate his flight. Finally,the defendant faces a lengthy term of incarceration, which wouldincrease his motive to flee the United States if he were released3

Activity (5)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Azri Yusri liked this
Zaza Saidi liked this
Azril Arif liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->