This is the indictment in the case. It's purely fraud (as defined in the CAN-SPAM Act's Criminal Liability section) and identity theft.
=============
Presented to the Court by the foreman of the
Grand jury in open Court, in the presence of
the Grand Jury and FILED In The U.S.
DISTRICT COURT at Seattle, Washington.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY, and
NEWPORT INTERNET MARKETING)
CORPORATION,
Defendants.
The Grand Jury charges that:
COUNTS1-10
(Mail Fraud)
A. Background
At all times material herein,
1. ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY was the sole owner/operator of NEWPORT INTERNET MARKETING CORPORATION, also variously known as "Newport IM Corporation," "NIM," and "NPR."
2. ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY first incorporated and operated NEWPORT INTERNET MARKETING CORPORATION (hereinafter "NIM"), in California on or about November 24, 1998. In or about March, 2000, ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY moved to Oregon, where he lived and operated NIM from several locations before relocating to Seattle, Washington on or about November 28, 2003. Since on or about November 28, 2003, ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY has resided at 1200 Western Avenue, Apartment 17E, Seattle, Washington 98101, and has operated NIM from his residence at that address.
3. This Indictment charges crimes that have been committed over the Internet and using computer technology. Because this Indictment contains terms that may not be familiar to the general public, definitions of those terms are included in paragraphs 4 through 15, below.
4. Internet Protocol Address ("IP address"): An Internet Protocol (IP)address is a unique; 32 bit numeric address used to identify computers on the Internet. An IP address consists of four numbers, each from 0 to 255, separated by periods.Every computer connected to the Internet (or group of computers using the same account to access the Internet) must be assigned an IP address so that Internet traffic sent from and directed to that computer is directed properly from its source and to its destination. IP addresses are typically assigned by Internet service providers ("ISPs"), such as AOL, Earthlink, or Comcast. An ISP might assign a different IP address to a customer each time the customer makes an internet connection (so-called "dynamic IP addressing"), or it might assign an IP address to a customer permanently or for a fixed period of time (so-called "static IP. addressing"). Even if an IP address is dynamically assigned, the computer will retain the originally assigned IP address if the computer never disconnects from the network after the initial IP address assignment or the user does not manually reset it. Regardless of whether it is dynamically assigned or static, the IP address used by a computer attached to the Internet must be unique for the duration of a particular session; that is, from connection to disconnection.
ISPs typically log their customers' connections, including IP addresses. The ISP can thus identify which of their customers was assigned a specific IP address during a particular session.
5. Domain Name: In the context of the Internet, a domain name is the logical, text-based equivalent of the numeric IP address. Because it is "logical," and text-based, a domain name - for example, "www.testname.com" - is more easily remembered by humans than is an exclusively numeric IP address, such as "23.45.35.100."
Like an IP address, a domain name does consist of a sequence of characters, separated by periods. Domain names are organized hierarchically and read from right to left. The right-most component is the "top level domain." This includes the ".com," ".gov," and ".edu" domains, as well as many others. Top level domains are owned and managed by the Internet sanctioning organizations. The second part of the domain name is owned by the registrant who first registered the name with the sanctioning organizations. Domain name owners can then create sub-domains to provide access to resources they own and/or control.
6. Domain Name Service ("DNS"): DNS is the Internet resource for converting the text-based domain names into IP addresses. DNS server computers maintain a database for resolving domain host names and IP addresses, allowing users of computers configured to query the DNS to specify remote computers by the easier-to-remember domain host names (in words), rather than by the difficult-to-remember numerical IP addresses.
DNS also thus makes it possible to "move" a host on the Internet (which- would entail a change in the underlying IP address), while still preserving the availability of the resource based on its text-based domain name. Users would still request the resource by its (text-based) domain name, and DNS would resolve the name to the new IP address.
7. Server: A computer that provides a service - such as e-mail or Web data - to other computers (known as "clients") via a network or the Internet. When a user accesses e-mail or Internet web pages, or accesses files stored on the network itself, those files are pulled electronically from the server where they are stored and are sent to the client's computer via the network or Internet. Notably, server computers can be physically located in any location; for example, it is not uncommon for a network's server to be located hundreds (or even thousands) of miles away from the client computers.
8. Proxy Server: A proxy server is a computer that offers a computer network service to allow clients to make indirect network connections to other computers or network services. An open proxy is a computer that will accept client connections from any IP address and make connections to any Internet resource. A proxy server can be used to camouflage the originating source IP address of an e-mail communication, as the IP address of the originating source of the communication will be replaced in the header by the IP address of the proxy server. Use of multiple proxy servers adds to the difficulty of tracing a communication back to its true original IP address source.
9. Internet Service Provider ("ISP"): A business that provides connectivity to the Internet. ISPs typically provide the ability to send and receive e-mail, browse the World Wide Web and download (copy) files from Internet servers. Internet Service Providers often offer other Internet-related services such as hosting an Internet site on a web server.
10. Website: A location on the Internet at which an individual or organization provides information to others about itself. It may also provide links to other Internet sites with common interests or goals.
11. E-mail header: The beginning of an e-mail message, that contains detailed information (IP address and domain names) of the origin of the e-mail ("From" designation); the destination of the e-mail ("To" designation); as well as date, routing, and possibly subject matter information.
12. Forged e-mail header: A tactic used to hide the source address of an e-mail by placing false information in the "From:" field of the e-mail header.
13. Bounce back e-mail: Errors can occur at multiple places in e-mail delivery. A user may sometimes receive a bounce back message from their own e-mail server, and sometimes from a recipient's e-mail server. For example, imagine that Jack (jack@example.com) sends a message to Jill (fill@example.org) at a different site. Once Jack's e-mail server has accepted the message, it must either pass it along to Jill's e-mail server, or else deposit a bounce message in Jack's mailbox. However, problems arise if Jill's e-mail server receives a message with a forged From: field, e.g., if spammer@example.net sends an unsolicited bulk message claiming to be from jack@example.com. In this case, Jill's mail server would send the bounce message to Jack even though Jack never sent the original message to Jill. This is called a bounce back e-mail or backscatter.
14. Spam: bulk ("multiple[1]") commercial e-mail messages. "Spamming" is the abuse of electronic messaging systems by sending multiple commercial e-mail messages.
[1: "Multiple" is defined within 18 U.S.C. ยง1037 as "more than 100 electronic mail messages 28 during a 24-hour period, more than 1,000 electronic mail messages during a 30-day period, or more than 10,000 electronic messages during a 1-year period."]
15. "Opt-in e-mail address": the e-mail address of an Internet user who has signaled his/her consent to receive commercial e-mail communications.
B. The Offense
16. Beginning at a date uncertain, but on or before November 28, 2003, and continuing through on or about May, 2007, within the Western District of Washington and elsewhere, ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM did knowingly and willfully devise and intend to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud, and for obtaining money and property by means of material false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises; and in executing and attempting to execute this scheme and artifice, did knowingly cause to be sent and delivered matters and things by the United States Postal Service and private or commercial interstate carriers according to the directions thereon.
C. Essence of the Scheme and Artifice to Defraud
17. The essence of the scheme and artifice to defraud was that ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM created and published a series of websites on the World Wide Web during the period from November 28, 2003, until May 23, 2007, using a variety of "company" names, and hosted with dozens of different domain names. The content of the websites created and published by ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM consisted of commercial advertisements for "broadcast email" services and products (that is, SOLOWAY was offering, for a price, to either send out a high volume of e-mail messages on behalf of a customer, or to sell a software product to the customer that would enable them to send out their own high volume e-mail messages). In those commercial online advertisements, ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM made numerous material false and fraudulent representations regarding the "broadcast email" services and products that they offered for sale. They also made material false and fraudulent representations regarding the availability of technical assistance and the payment of "full 100%" refunds to dissatisfied customers.
ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM would send the "broadcast email" (software) product to paying customers via the United States Postal Service or a private or commercial interstate carrier. The software product that was sent by ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM did not perform as advertised, however, and often did not work at all. ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM refused, however, to provide the promised assistance, or to provide refunds to dissatisfied customers, and instead threatened those who requested a refund with additional financial charges and referral to a collection agency.
The "broadcast email" services advertised and sold by ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM also.did not perform as advertised. The "broadcast email" that ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM did transmit on behalf of paying customers constituted "spam"; i.e., bulk and high volume commercial e-mail messages that contained false and forged headers and that was relayed using a proxy computer network. Customers who had purchased the "service," and who complained thereafter or asked for refunds were threatened by ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM with additional financial charges and referral to a collection agency.
D. The Scheme and Artifice to Defraud
18. It was part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM advertised "broadcast email" services and products for sale on a series of websites (the "NIM websites") that ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY created and published, on the World Wide Web, during the period from November 28, 2003, through and until May, 2007.
19. It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that the "service" advertised for sale by ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NMM was the transmission over the Internet of a high volume of e-mail messages containing whatever advertisement the customer supplied. Different "levels" ("bronze,""silver, " "gold," and "platinum") of this service were available; with each successively "higher" level promising a higher number of e-mailed messages, at a successively higher price. For example, a customer purchasing the "bronze" level of service could have his "email ad [sent] to 2,000,000 emails over 15 days" for $195.00; and a customer purchasing the service at the "platinum" level could have has "email ad [sent] to 20,000,000 emails over 15 days" for a cost of $495.00.
20. It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that the "product" that was advertised for sale was a "broadcast email package" containing a handbook and software that would provide "everything [the customer would] need to send lifetime broadcast email campaigns to millions of people for free," along with e-mail addresses ranging from 5,000,000 ("bronze level" for $195.00), to up to 80,000,000 e-mail addresses ("platinum level" for $495.00).
21. It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM made numerous representations on the NIM websites that were designed and intended to encourage readers to purchase the "broadcast email services" and/or the "broadcast email product" that were there advertised for sale, including the ability of NIM to reach tens of millions of potential customers with "broadcast email"; the relatively low cost of "broadcast email" in relation to its effectiveness as a marketing and sales tool; and the significant increases in sales that could be expected by those who purchased the NIM "broadcast email services" or "broadcast email product."
22. It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM made numerous material- false and fraudulent representations in their online NIM websites regarding the "services" and "product" that were there offered for sale, including the following:
a) that NIM provided and used a data base of 157,800,000 "Permission-Based Opt-In Emails" that could be "geographically" and "interest" "targeted";
b) that the software product "automatically creates 10 super-fast mail servers on your computer";
c) that the software product included the ability to send out "unlimited, personalized and targeted broadcast email advertisements" to over 500,000,000 people on the Internet at a rate of up to 1,000,000 daily, automatically and for free;
d) that the software product would send e-mail for a "lifetime" for "free";
e) that NIM's "Customer and Technical Support Department" offered assistance "24/7," "with everything you need";
f) that if a purchaser of the software product did "not receive at least a 400 % increase in sales after using [the] broadcast email package for 90 days," the customer could "simply return it ... for a full 100% refund, no questions asked"; and
g) that if a purchaser of the "broadcast service" did not "receive at least a 500% increase in sales within 7 days of the start of [the] ad ...[NIM would] resend your ad to a new audience of the same amount of emails ordered, 100% free, no questions asked."
In truth and in fact, and as ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM then well knew, the product and services that he sold did not utilize "permission based opt-in email addresses" and did not have the other capabilities that were falsely advertised; NIM and ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY did not provide customers with technical or other support, but instead typically evaded or simply denied customer's requests for support; and ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM regularly evaded and denied customer's requests for refunds, and often threatened customers who were requesting them with the prospect of additional charges, referral to collections agencies, and "ruined credit" if they pursued a refund or charge back from the processing credit card company.
23. It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM hosted the series of NIM websites that advertised their "broadcast email" product and services on a series of at least 50 successive domain names, that included broadcastemailcorporation.com, optinemail.com, theemailbroadcastingcompany.com, broadcastemailinc.com, broadcastemailworld.com, emailbroadcstingcompany.com, and permissionemailcorp.com.
24. It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM used a credit card number that belonged to C.W., without C.W.'s permission or consent, to register and pay for the domain name colidsilver.com, which was one of the domain names used to host the NIM website.
25. It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that, beginning no later than 2006, ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM registered the domain names used for hosting the NIM websites through Chinese ISPs, which would not publically reveal that ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM were the true registrants of these domain names.
26. It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY advertised the NIM websites by generating and transmitting tens of millions of spam e-mail messages over the Internet, that contained an advertisement for, "broadcast email services," and also a hyper-link to the domain name that was then currently hosting the NIM website.
27. It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that the tens of millions of spam e-mail messages generated and transmitted by ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM to advertise and link to the NIM websites contained false and fraudulent headers. The headers were false and fraudulent in one of three different ways: 1) the "from" field in the header would be blank, 2) the "from" field in the header would contain a false and non-existant domain name or e-mail address, or 3) the "from" field in the header would contain a forged domain name or e-mail address that belonged to another real person or organization (which address would typically also be contained in the "to" field).
28. Victims whose unique e-mail addresses or domain names had been stolen by ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM and been forged into the "from" header suffered a number of adverse consequences as a result. These include the following:
Because these victims could sometimes be specifically identified based on their unique e-mail addresses or domain names, they were sometimes mistakenly blamed for the spamming activity of ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM. In some instances, this resulted in "black-listing" by ISPs, due to the victims' apparent (but not actual) role in spamming activity. For victims that were legitimate online businesses, this could mean the loss of significant sales, or even a collapse of their business.
In other instances, the servers of the victims whose e-mail addresses or domain names had been forged into the headers would receive large volumes of worthless communications that consisted of bounce back e-mails from spam that ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM had transmitted to invalid e-mail addresses. The spam would consume valuable storage space on their servers, and cost both time and money to eliminate.
The forging technique of using legitimate e-mail addresses and domain names of other real people and organizations in the "from," as well as the "to" header also significantly diminished the ability of the victim recipients' to stop the spam with "spam filters. " Spam filters are most typically configured to filter in-coming e-mails based on the presence of certain e-mail addresses or domain names in the header, or the presence of certain originating IP addresses. A victim could not "filter" based on the use of their own legitimate e-mail address and/or domain name in the "from" field in the header, because that would also block all legitimate in-coming traffic with the same address in the "to" field of the header. And because SOLOWAY and NIM used proxy computers to relay the spam, it was also difficult for victims to filter the spam based on the originating IP address. By combining the use of forged "from" headers and proxy relays, ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM made it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for victims to block the incoming NIM spam. And because ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM would not honor recipients' requests to be removed from their "distribution email" (spamming) address lists, this often meant that victims ultimately had to close their established e-mail accounts or cancel their established domain names in order to effectively stop the spam that was relentlessly transmitted to them by ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM.
29. It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM used a number of different servers, with different IP addresses, to transmit millions of spam e-mail messages to advertise the NIM websites. In order to facilitate the transmission of spam from these servers, ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM installed the "Dark Mailer" software program on them. The Dark Mailer program was configured to send e-mail messages with forged headers using a pre-designed template, and was also configured to use a list of over 2,000 proxy computers to relay the spam e-mails to the ultimate recipients.
30. It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that the proxy computers used for the relay of the spammed e-mail advertising messages further concealed the IP address of the computer that was the true originating source of the spammed e-mail messages.
31. It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that the servers used by ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM included servers that were rented from hosting providers NoBull and Hopone, both of which companies acted to terminate ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM's use of the servers for violations of their terms of use agreements because ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM used the servers to distribute spam.
32. It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that the "broadcast email services" sold by ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM actually consisted of spam (i.e., bulk commercial) e-mail messages that included forged headers, and that were relayed or retransmitted by a network of proxy computers.
33. It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that, if they worked at all, the "broadcast email products" sold by ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM also resulted in the creation and transmission of spam (i.e., bulk commercial e-mail) that included forged headers, and that were relayed or retransmitted by a network of proxy computers.
34. It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM represented falsely on the NIM websites that "[w]e Offer Easy Hassle-Free Email Removal From Our [sic] All of Our Emailing Lists Upon Request Below," whereas in truth and in fact, and as ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM well knew, they routinely failed and refused to remove individuals who made such a request from their e-mail lists, even when such individuals made repeated requests for removal from the lists.
35. It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM routinely provided a false and fraudulent address of "1001 4th Ave. - #1259, Seattle, WA 98111" as the "corporate address" that was published on the NIM websites.
E. Execution of the Scheme and Artifice to Defraud
36. On or about the below-listed dates, within the Western District of Washington and elsewhere, for the purpose of executing and attempting to execute this scheme and artifice to defraud, ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM knowingly caused the following items to be placed in an authorized depository for mail matter to be sent or delivered by a private or commercial interstate carrier, according to the directions thereon, each such mailing constituting a representative example of the use of the mails in furtherance of the scheme and artifice to defraud, and' each mailing constituting a separate count of this Indictment.
| Count | Approx. Date of Mailing | Item Mailed and Nature of Mailing | Method |
| 1 | 17/16/04 | NIM software product (CD) sent to E.O. in Floresville, TX |
Fed Ex |
| 2 | 6/02/05 | NIM software product (CD) sent to R.B. in Los Angeles, CA |
Fed Ex |
| 3 | 8/11/05 | NIM software product (CD) sent to C.D. in Upper Marlboro, MD |
Fed Ex |
| 4 | 8/22/05 | NIM software product (CD) sent to D.G. in Lakeville, MN |
Fed Ex |
| 5 | 9/01/05 | NIM software product (CD) sent to A.H. in Cedarburg, WI |
Fed Ex |
| 6 | 9/15/05 | NIM software product (CD) sent to J J-G. in Slingerlands, NY |
Fed Ex |
| 7 | 1/26/06 | NIM software product (CD) sent to B.A. in Bremerton, WA |
Fed Ex |
| 8 | 6/02/06 | NIM software product (CD) sent to M.F. in Cerritos, CA |
Fed Ex |
| 9 | 1/18/07 | NIM software product (CD) sent to J.H. in Dallas, TX |
Fed Ex |
| 10 | 3/30/07 | NIM software product (CD) sent to K.A. in Davenport, IA |
Fed Ex |
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1341.
COUNTS 11-15
(Wire Fraud)
1. The Grand Jury realleges and incorporates. as if fully set forth herein Paragraphs I through 35 of Count 1 of this Indictment as constituting the scheme to defraud.
2. Beginning at a date uncertain, but on or before November 28, 2003, and continuing through on or about May, 2007, within the Western District of Washington and elsewhere, ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM did knowingly and willfully devise and execute and attempt to execute a scheme and artifice to defraud, and to obtain money and property by means of material false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises as more particularly set forth in Count 1 of this Indictment; and in executing or attempting to execute this scheme and artifice, did knowingly cause to be transmitted in interstate commerce by means of wire communication, certain signs, signals and sounds.
3. On or about the below-listed dates, within the Western District of Washington and elsewhere, for the purpose of executing and attempting to execute this scheme and artifice to defraud, ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM did knowingly cause to be transmitted in interstate commerce by means of wire communication, certain signs, signals, and sounds, that is, e-mail or other wire communications relating to the advertisement and sale of "broadcast email" services and products, from Seattle, to the recipient identified below, each of which constituted a separate count of this Indictment:
| Count | Approx. Date | Nature of Interstate Wire Communication | Recipient of Wire Communication |
| 11 | 5/17/04 | Spammed e-mail NIM advertisement and/or website containing false and fraudulent misrepresentations re: product sold, tech. assistance, and guarantee | M.H., Howard, OH |
| 12 | 10/10/04 | Spammed e-mail NIM advertisement and/or website containing false and fraudulent misrepresentations re: product sold, tech. assistance, and guarantee | R.S., Mercer, PA |
| 13 | 11/02/05 | Spammed e-mail NIM advertisement and/or website containing false and fraudulent misrepresentations re: product sold, tech. assistance, and guarantee | D.G., Valencia, CA |
| 14 | 11/10/05 | Spammed e-mail NIM advertisement and/or website containing false and fraudulent misrepresentations re: product sold, tech. assistance, and guarantee | S.A., Kendall Park, N.J. |
| 15 | 12/18/06 | Spammed e-mail NIM advertisement and/or website containing false and fraudulent misrepresentations re: product sold, tech. assistance, and guarantee | H.O., Bradenton, FL |
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343.
COUNT 16
(Fraud in Connection with Electronic Mail)
1. The Grand Jury realleges and incorporates as if fully set forth herein Paragraphs 1 through 35 of Count 1 of this Indictment.
2. From on or about January 1, 2004, to on or about May, 2007, within the Western District of Washington and elsewhere, ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM knowingly used a protected computer, in or affecting interstate and foreign commerce, to relay or retransmit multiple commercial electronic mail messages with the intent to deceive or mislead recipients, or any Internet access service, as to the origin of such messages, and did so in furtherance of a felony under the laws of the United States, to wit, Mail Fraud and Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1341 and 1343.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1037(a)(2) and (b)(1)(A).
COUNT 17
(Fraud in Connection with Electronic Mail)
1. The Grand Jury realleges and incorporates as if fully set forth herein Paragraphs I through 35 of Count 1 of this Indictment.
2. From on or about January 1, 2004, to on or about May, 2007, within the Western District of Washington and elsewhere, ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM, in or affecting interstate and foreign commerce, knowingly and materially falsified header information in multiple commercial electronic mail messages, and intentionally initiated the transmission of such messages, all in furtherance of a felony under the laws of the United States, to wit, Mail Fraud and Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1341 and 1343.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1037(a)(3) and (b)(1)(A).
COUNT 18
(Aggravated Identity Theft)
1. The Grand Jury realleges and incorporates as if fully set forth herein Paragraphs 1 through 35 of Count 1 of this Indictment.
2. On or about September 19, 2006 , within the Western District of Washington and elsewhere, ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM knowingly transferred, possessed and used, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person, to wit, the name and credit card number of C. W. , which ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM used to register and pay for the domain name, "colidsilver.com", which domain was used to host the NIM website, and did so during and in relation to a felony listed in Title 18, United States Code, Section 1028A(c), to wit, Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343, and Fraud in Connection with Electronic Mail, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1037(a)(3) and (b)(1)(A).
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1028A(a)(1).
COUNT 19
(Aggravated Identity Theft)
1. The Grand Jury realleges and incorporates as if fully set forth herein Paragraphs 1 through 35 of Count 1 of this Indictment.
2. On or about April 1, 2006, within the Western District of Washington and elsewhere, ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM knowingly transferred, possessed and used, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person, to wit, the domain name, "****ilot.net", registered to and owned by A.P., of St. Petersberg, FL, which ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM used in a forged e-mail header that was contained in commercial-electronic mail messages transmitted by ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM during and in relation to a felony listed in Title 18, United States Code, Section 1028A(c), to wit, Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343, and Fraud in Connection with Electronic Mail, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1037(a)(3) and (b)(1)(A).
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1028A(a)(1).
COUNT 20
(Aggravated Identity Theft)
1. The Grand Jury realleges and incorporates as if fully set forth herein Paragraphs 1 through 35 of Count 1 of this Indictment.
2. On or about February 1, 2006, within the Western District of Washington and elsewhere, ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM knowingly transferred, possessed and used, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person, to wit, the domain name, "*****esuk.com", registered to and owned by L.M., of the United Kingdom, which ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM used in a forged e-mail header that was contained in commercial electronic mail messages transmitted by ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM during and in relation to a felony listed in Title 18, United States Code, Section 1028A(c), to wit, Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343, and Fraud in Connection with Electronic Mail, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1037(a)(3) and (b)(1)(A).
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1028A(a)(1).
COUNT 21
(Aggravated Identity Theft)
1. The Grand Jury realleges and incorporates as if fully set forth herein Paragraphs 1 through 35 of Count 1 of this Indictment.
2. On or about October 1, 2006, within the Western District of Washington and elsewhere, ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM knowingly transferred, possessed and used, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person, to wit, the e-mail address, "sales@dm****.com", registerd to and owned by D.M., of Valencia, PA, which ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM used in a forged e-mail header that was contained in commercial electronic mail messages transmitted by ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM during and in relation to a felony listed in Title 18, United States Code, Section 1028A(c), to wit, Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343, and Fraud in Connection with Electronic Mail, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1037(a)(3) and (b)(1)(A).
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1028A(a)(1).
COUNT 22
(Aggravated Identity Theft)
1. The Grand Jury realleges and incorporates as if fully set forth herein Paragraphs 1 through 35 of Count 1 of this Indictment.
2. On or about February 1, 2007, within the Western District of Washington and elsewhere, ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM knowingly transferred, possessed and used, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person, to wit, the e-mail address, "k.t******@sdscsocialservice.org," which is the individually identifiable e-mail address of K.T. at her workplace in Santa Barbara, CA, which ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM used in a forged e-mail header that was contained in commercial electronic mail messages transmitted by ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM during and in relation to a felony listed in Title 18, United States Code, Section 1028A(c), to wit, Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343, and Fraud in Connection with Electronic Mail, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1037(a)(3) and (b)(1)(A).
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1028A(a)(1).
COUNTS 23 - 35
(Money Laundering)
1. The Grand Jury realleges and incorporates as if fully set forth herein the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 35 of Count 1.
2. On or about the dates set forth below, within the Western District of Washington, ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM did knowingly conduct or attempt to conduct the following financial transactions, affecting interstate and foreign commerce, which transactions involved the proceeds of specified, unlawful activities, namely, mail fraud, a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1341, and wire fraud, a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343, with the intent to promote the carrying on of the specified unlawful activities, and while conducting and attempting to conduct such financial transactions, knowing that the property involved in the financial transactions set forth below represented the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity:
| Count | Approx. Date of Transaction | Description of Transaction | Amount |
| 23 | 08/29/2004 | American Express '1005 payment to Direct Debit Collections for collections services | 75.80 |
| 24 | 02/14/2005 | Visa '5127 payment to Cologuys for server hosting services | 150.00 |
| 25 | 12/17/2005 | Visa '5127 payment to Cologuys for server hosting services | 150.00 |
| 26 | 01/22/2006 | Visa '5127 payment to Millennium Digital Media for Internet Service Provide services | 198.25 |
| 27 | 02/22/2006 | Visa '5127 payment to Millennium Digital Media for Internet Service Provider services | 198.25 |
| 28 | 6/2/2005 | American Express '1005 payment to FedEx for shipping services to R.B. in Los Angeles, CA | 15.30 |
| 29 | 08/11/2005 | American Express '1005 payment to FedEx for shipping services to C.D. in upper Marlboro, MD | 16.40 |
| 30 | 05/08/2006 | MasterCard '2314 payment to Harbor Steps through Pa Rent.com for rent | 1,814.95 |
| 31 | 06/06/2006 | MasterCard '2314 payment to Harbor Steps through Pa Rent.com for rent | 1,864.95 |
| 32 | 01/26/2006 | American Express '1005 payment to FedEx for shipping services to Names by Lourdes, Bremerton, WA 98311 | 12.45 |
| 33 | 10/29/2006 | Visa '5127 payment to NoBull Server for server hosting services | 345.00 |
| 34 | 12/01/2006 | Visa '5127 payment to NoBull Server for server hosting services | 345.00 |
| 35 | 01/09/2007 | American Express '1005 payment to AIT for server hosting services | 149.88 |
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1956(a)(1)(A)(i).
FORFEITURE ALLEGATIONS
1. The Grand Jury realleges and incorporates as if fully set forth herein Paragraphs 1 through 35 of Count 1, Counts 2 - 17, and Counts 23 - 35.
2. Upon conviction of one or more of the offenses charged in Counts 1 through 17 of this Indictment, ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM shall forfeit to the United States pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c) any property, real or personal, constituting or derived from proceeds traceable to said violations, including but not limited to the following:
a) Money Judgment
A sum of money equal to $772,998.54 United States currency, representing the amount of proceeds obtained as a result of the offenses charged in the Indictment for which the defendants are jointly and severally liable.
b) Contents of Bank Accounts
Currency or other monetary instruments credited to or contained in the following accounts:
1) West America account; owner: Newport Internet Marketing, account number ****3285;
2) Wells Fargo account; owner: Robert A. Soloway, account number: ******3243;
3) Epassporte.com account; owner: Robert A. Soloway, account number: ***3939; and
4) Epassporte.com account; owner: Robert A. Soloway, account number: ***6723;
3. If any of the above described forfeitable property, as a result of any act or omission of the defendants:
a) cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;
b) has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party;
c) has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court;
d) has been substantially diminished in-value; or
e) has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without difficulty;
it is the intent of the United States, pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p) as incorporated by Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(b), to seek forfeiture of any other property of said defendants up to the value of the forfeitable property described above or to seek the return of the property to the jurisdiction of the Court so that the property may be seized and forfeited.
All pursuant to the provisions of Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C), Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c), and Title 21, United States Code, Section 853.
4. Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(a)(1), upon conviction of one or more of the money laundering offenses set forth in Counts 23 - 35 of this Indictment, ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY and NIM shall forfeit to the United States any and all property, real or personal, involved in each offense in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956 for which the defendants are convicted, and all property traceable to such property, including all money or other property that was the subject of each transaction, transportation, transmission or transfer in violation of Section 1956; all commissions, fees and other property constituting proceeds obtained directly as a result of these violations; and all property used in any manner or part to commit or to facilitate the commission of those violations, including, but not limited to, the contents of:
1) West America account; owner: Newport Internet Marketing, account number ****3285;
2) Wells Fargo account; owner: Robert A. Soloway, account number: ******3243;
3) Epassporte.com account; owner: Robert A. Soloway, account number: ***3939; and
4) Epassporte.com account; owner: Robert A. Soloway; account number: ***6723.
If any of the above-described forfeitable property, as a result of any act or omission of the defendants:
a) cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;
b) has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party;
c) has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court;
d) has been substantially diminished in value; or
e) has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without difficulty;
it is the intent of the United States, pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p) as incorporated by Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(b), to seek forfeiture of any other property of the defendants up to the value of the forfeitable property described above.
All pursuant to the provisions of Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(a)(1), and Title 21, United States Code, Section 853.
A TRUE BILL
DATED: 5/23/2007
Signature of Foreperson redacted
pursuant to the policy of the Judicial
Conference
FOREPERSON
JEFFREY C. SULLIVAN
United States Attorney
CARL BLACKSTONE
Assistant United States Attorney
RICHARD COHEN
Assistant United States Attorney
KATHRYN A. WARMA
Assistant United States Attorney