Scareware mongers cough up $8m to settle fraud charges

More than a million duped

By Dan Goodin, 27th January 2011

Federal authorities will collect $8 million from members of a scareware operation that duped more than a million people into installing bogus security software on their computers.

Marc D'Souza and his father, Maurice D'Souza, agreed to pay $8.2 million in “ill-gotten gains” generated by the scam, which pimped software titles such as Winfixer, Drive Cleaner, and Antivirus XP. The operation worked by plastering legitimate websites with ads that were manipulated to look like antivirus scans that inevitably found infections that could only be fixed with packages that ranged from $40 to $60 in price.

The US Federal Trade Commission – which in 2008 brought fraud charges against Innovative Marketing, ByteHosting Internet Services, and several individuals – alleged the operation went to great lengths to trick some of the world's more popular websites into carrying the deceptive ads. When one site rejected the ads, the defendants formed sham advertising agencies that placed the malicious ads themselves.

The FTC has come under criticism in the past for delivering mild wrist slaps to internet-based fraudsters who are blatantly breaking the law. The case against Innovative Marketing and ByteHost shows the agency's better side. Government prosecutors doggedly pursued the defendants, some based overseas, after they failed to appear at court hearings and flouted a judge's order that they shut down their operation.

In 2009, defendant James Reno agreed to pay a reduced penalty of $116,000 and promised to get out of the scareware business for good. The FTC has already obtained default judgements against three other defendants. The case continues against the sole remaining defendant in the case, Kristy Ross.

COMMENTS

House Rules Send Corrections

All Reader Comments (14)

Highly Rated

Posted Friday 28th January 2011 05:24 GMT

David Hicks

Fraud? Settled?

How the F*CK do you "settle" a fraud charge. After scamming hundreds of thousands of people out of money there should be jail time, total asset seizure and a good faith effort on behalf of the government to return the money to the people who were deferauded.

Not a fine and a promise to be a good boy from now on.

Jesus christ...

Posted Thursday 27th January 2011 23:11 GMT

Johnny Canuck

This is not a title

This punishment is in no way a deterrent, if anything its the opposite. As AC pointed out it sure sounds like a viable business model to me and will likely encourage more of this type of thing. A more appropriate punishment would have been to fine them $1000.00 for each paid installation plus estimated costs for removing the crud from people's machines, with some jail time thrown in for good measure.

Posted Thursday 27th January 2011 21:44 GMT

The Unexpected Bill

Please, please tell me that....

...some of the legal punishment dealt to these people might involve setting some part of them on fire.

As inappropriately magnetized as my moral compass might be, this kind of scheme makes me incredibly angry at best and sickens me at worst. (Wait until you've seen a senior citizen who thinks they've really screwed up, are very upset or confused as a result and you'll know what I mean.)

Hopefully there will be some decrease in the frequency of this crap showing up. For the last few months, these have been the most common call I get. Still, I'm not holding my breath.