U.S. Department of Justice Of?ce of Legislative Affairs Of?ce of the Assistant Attorney General Washington, DC. 20536 January 6, 2017 The Honorable Katherine M. Clark 1.1.3. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Congresswoman Clark: This responds to your letter to the Attorney General, dated September 13, 2016, requesting data regarding certain criminal offenses involving acts of cyberstaiking, cyber harassment, and harassment using interstate. methods of communication. We apologize for our delay in responding to your letter. The Department of Justice (the Department) is committed to vigorous enforcement of the various statutes prohibiting behavior that constitutes cyberstalking and cyber harassment. We have appreciated the opportunity to talk about these efforts during our ongoing dialogue with your staff members and during the brie?ng that we provided to you last year on this and other issues. The Department has been actively prosecuting these important cases for many years, as reflected in a few examples below: . In 2012, Department prosecutors obtained a 288-month sentence for Jeffrey Grimes, who was convicted of numerous counts of violating 4? U.S.C. 223 (Obscene or Harassing Telephone Calls), 18 U.S.C. 8?6(d) (Mailing Threatening Communications), and 18 U.S.C. (Stalking). Grimes made hundreds of hang-up calls to the victims and left twenty?six voicemail threatening messages. Grimes sent an embarrassing announcement to the local newspaper regarding the victims and threatened to deface the tombstone of the deceased son of two of the victims. See United States v. Grimes, 702 F.3d 460 (8th Cir. 2012). In 2012, Department prosecutors obtained an indictment alleging that Shawn Sayer violated 18 U.S.C. 1028(a)(7) (Identity Theft) and (Cyberstalking). After pleading guilty pursuant to a plea agreement, Sayer received a statutory maximum ?ve-year sentence under 18 U.S.C. Sayer stalked his victim after their relationship ended. The victim obtained protective orders against the defendant, who had been arrested on at least eight prior occasions for violating such orders. The stalking escalated when Sayer posted pictures of the victim on Craigsiist in the ?Casual Encounters? section. In addition to the photos, the ads included directions to the home The Honorable Katherine M. Clark Page 2 of the victim, causing her to be terri?ed for her safety. See United States v. Sayer, T48 F.3d 425 (1st Cir. 2014). In 2014, the Ninth Circuit af?nned the conviction and 46?month sentence of Christopher Osinger for violations of 18 U.S.C. (Cyberstalking) and 2261(b)(5) (Interstate TraveliDomestic Violence). Osinger sent the victim several threatening text messages and sent sexually explicit pictures of the victim to her fellow employees. He also created a Facebook page in a name similar to the victim?s on which he posted suggestive and sexually explicit photos of the victim. See United States v. Osinger, 7'53 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2014). In 2015, Department prosecutors obtained a 480-month sentence for Joseph Ray Jordan after his trial for violations of 18 U.S.C. 875(c) (interstate Threats), 1512(h) (Tampering With a Witness), 878 (Threats Against Internationally Protected Persons), and (Cyberstalking). The defendant had engaged in a months-long campaign to terrorize and harass the victim. His conduct included sending the victim a number of threats including one via email that he would ?whisk away? the victim when it was ?least expected,? and two additional texts indicating that he was planning to ?rescue her? when it was ?least expected.? His behavior included using the victim?s name to create a website on which he admitted that he intended to hurt the victim. See United States v. Jordan, 639 Fed. Appx. 768 (2d Cir. 2016). In 2016, Department prosecutors obtained a 92-month sentence for William White after a trial for violations of 18 825(b) (Extortionate Threats) and 875(c) (Interstate Threats). White called and threatened the victim and emailed the victim threats causing her to fear for her safety. See United States v. White, 810 F.3d 212 (4th Cir. 2015). In 2016, Department prosecutors obtained three life sentences for defendants David Matusiewicz, Lenore Matusicwicz, and Amy Gonzalez in the first case charging 18 U.S.C. 2-261A?s ?resulting in death? enhancement. The defendants were charged with multipie acts of violating 18 U.S.C. (Interstate Stalking), 22621(2) (Cyberstalking), and 13 U.S.C. 371 (Conspiracy). The defendants engaged in a prolonged campaign to surveil and harass Thomas Matusiewicz?s ex-wife in response to the termination of his parental rights. The online harassment included posting sexual abuse accusations against the victims online and sending these accusations to the victims? school and church. The defendants traveled to Delaware for a family court hearing where David Matusiewicz shot the victim, her companion, and himself. See United States v. Matasiewiez, 8.4 F. Supp. 3d 363 (D. Del. 2015). In 2016, Department prosecutors obtained a 52?month sentence for Michael C. Ford for violations of 18 U.S.C. (Cybers-talking), 1030(a)(7) (Extortion), and 1343 (Wire Fraud). Ford, while employed by the Department of State at the London embassy, engaged in a widespread, international cyberstalking and computer harassment campaign. Ford sent. ?phishing? emails to thousands of potential victims, warning them The Honorable Katherine M. Clark Page 3 that their e?mail accounts would be deleted if they did not provide their passwords. Ford, using the passwords collected from his phishing scheme, then hacked into hundreds of eumail and social media accounts where he searched for sexually explicit photographs. Once Ford located such photos, he then searched for personal identifying information (PII) about his victims, including their home and work addresses, school and employment information, and names and contact information of family members. Ford then used the stolen photos and PH to engage in cyberstalking campaigns designed to demand additional sexually explicit material and personal information. Ford e-mailed his victims with their stolen photos attached and threatened to release those photos if they did not cede to his demands. When the victims refused to comply, threatened to report the activity to the police, or begged Ford to leave them alone, Ford reSponded with additional threats. For example, Ford wrote in one e-rnail ?don?t worry, it?s not like I know where you live.? He then sent another e-mail to the same victim listing her home address and threatened to post her photographs, phone number and home address on an ?escortz?hooker website." Ford later described the victim?s home to her, stating ?i like your red fire escape ladder, easy to climb.? Ford followed through with his threats on several occasions, sending his victims? sexually explicit photo graphs to family members and friends. United States v. Ford, 1:15?cr?3l9 (N .1). Ga. 2015). Your letter focuses on the Department?s tracking of data regarding the investigation and prosecution of some types of cyberstalking and cyber harassment cases. While we can provide an approximation of the information you requested - the number of prosecutions the Department has conducted over the last ?ve years for violations of 13 U.S.C. 875(c) (Threats To Kidnap Or Injure Transmitted In interstate Commerce) and 13 U.S.C. (Cyberstalking) we continue to be concerned, as we have discussed with your staff, that this data will not be appropriate for the purpose for which you state you are seeking it, ?to assess the effectiveness of the federal statutes criminalizing harassment carried out over the interstate telecommunications system.? As you know, there are many federal statutes criminalizing stalking and harassing behavior carried out over the interstate telecommunications system. These offenses involve unique intertwined fact patterns and affect adults and children alike. Depending on the speci?c evidence in a particular case, and the specific penalties available, prosecutors might charge such conduct under a variety of statutes, including non-cyber statutes, such as: 18 U.S.C. 8?5(b) (Criminal Extortion); 18 U.S.C. ?1030(a)(2), (Computer Fraud); 18 U.S.C. 1201 (Attempted Kidnapping); 13 U.S.C. 2261MB (Interstate Stalking); 18 U.S.C. 2422(b) (Coercion of a Minor); and 47 11.3.0. 223 (Obscene or Harassing Telephone Calls). Many of these statutes are discussed in the Bulletin?: 35 6fdownload, published by the Department in May 2016 and focusing on cyherstalking, the communication of threats in interstate commerce, and cyberbullying issues. The document, which we previously provided to your staff, includes data related to some of those statutes. In your letter, you have requested data about only two of the statutes that prosecutors use to charge conduct that can be described as cyberstalking and cyber harassment: 18 U.S.C. 375 The Honorable Katherine M. Clark Page 4 and 2261A. The numbers of prosecutions brought under these two statutes areineluded in the USA Bulletin. However, as we have mentioned previously, these numbers will not provide a fulsome assessment of the cyberstalking and cyberharassment cases which have been brought by the Department because these numbers do not include cases brought under other statutes. Your letter further narrows your request for data to the more speci?c level of subsections of those two statutes, that is, subsection of 18 U.S.C. 825 and subsection (2) of 18 U.S.C. 2261A. We are concerned that focusing only on two subsections of these two statutes may further underrepresent the Department?s work in this area because additional cases may have been brought under different subsections. For example, while subsection of Section 83?5 eriminalizes interstate communications involving threats to kidnap or injure a victim, other subsections of 18 USC. 875 may also be used in cases of cyberstalking or cyberharassment. Subsection 875(a) criminalizes conununications involving ransom or reward for the release of any kidnapped person; 87.503) criminalizes interstate communications with the ?intent to extort,? related to a communication containing a threat to kidnap or injure; and 875(d) criminalizes threats to extort related to a threat to injure the property or reputation of a victim. We also note that subsection (2) of Section criminalizes not only stalking behavior via interactive computer services, but also includes stalking that occurs via use of mail, telephone, or other means of interstate or foreign commerce. As such, it cannot be assumed that every case prosecuted under subsection (2) involved threats or harassment that were by ?cyber? means. We do not believe the numbers generated by the Department?s electronic database regarding these two subsections will be a meaningful measure of the effectiveness of the federal statutes criminalizing eyberstalkingand cyberharassment. As we have discussed with your staff, the computer data system used by the Executive Of?ce for United States Attorneys is a management tool intended for use'by the United States Attorneys for things such as assessing the volume and distribution of caseloads among employees. Typically, only the statutory code section for the ?lead charge? in a case is entered in the system. This is the ?rst charge listed in the. indictment, and is typically the most serious charge with the highest penalty. Moreover, typically only the statute section, but not the subsection numbers is entered into the system. Accordingly, while we are able to provide you some numbers from the database of proSecutions under the statutory subsections you have requested, these numbers likely represent only cases in which Section 875(e) or were the lead charge in the indictment, and for which U.S-. Attorney?s office staff opted to enter the subsection of the statute. The Honorable Katherine M. Clark Page 5 We are happy to have further discussions with your staff to clarify these limitations or provide additional context for the data we have provided below in response to your speci?c request: Title 18 U.S.C. 875(c) Fiscal Year Cases Filed FY 201 50 FY 2012 53 FY 2013 63 FY 2014 53 FY 2015 52 2016 61 Title 18 U.S.C. Fiscal Year Cases Filed FY 2011 4 FY 2012 3 FY 2013 5 FY 2014 6 FY 2015 5 2016 7 We hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact this of?ce if we may provide additional assistance regarding this or any other matter. Sincerely, [91/ V11 Peter . Ka zik Assistant Attorney General