Marcus Hutchins, the researcher who stopped the Wannacry Windows ransomware attack, has pleaded guilty to two counts of writing banking malware in 2014.
Hutchins was accused of writing a banking malware called Kronos in 2014, after he finished high school. The researcher was arrested in Las Vegas after attending the hacker conference Def Con in 2017. Days later, he plead not guilty in a Milwaukee courtroom. He was scheduled to be tried this summer.
But on Friday, Hutchins plead guilty to two counts of [cracking]. According to the guilty plea, each of these counts carries a maximum sentence of 5 years, $250,000 in fines and up to 1 year of supervised release.
He has published a brief statement regarding the case on his blog.
Legal Case Update
As you may be aware, I’ve pleaded guilty to two charges related to writing malware in the years prior to my career in security. I regret these actions and accept full responsibility for my mistakes. Having grown up, I’ve since been using the same skills that I misused several years ago for constructive purposes. I will continue to devote my time to keeping people safe from malware attacks.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by realDonaldTrump on Saturday April 20 2019, @08:32PM (2 children)
You did the Grown Up thing. And "Pled" Guilty. Saving our Prosecutors & Courts a lot of Time & Money. You did the crime. And, hopefully you won't be doing the time. Hopefully you'll be working for me. For my FBI. So much Hacking going on and it's almost impossible to tell who did it. Could be Russia. Although, President Putin says it wasn't Russia. So I don't think it was Russia. Could be China. Could be a lot of people, right?
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 20 2019, @09:56PM (1 child)
"Hopefully you'll be working for me."
I doubt he'll be working for you. As he said, he's grown up and regretted the whole crime thing. I doubt he wants to get back into that particular den any time soon.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Saturday April 20 2019, @10:32PM
That's O.K. It's his choice. He doesn't have to come to FBI. He's a young guy, he can have a fabulous time in Prison. And still not be that old when he gets out. If he gets out!!!!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by aiwarrior on Saturday April 20 2019, @09:09PM (1 child)
This confession thing is the most perverted thing ever. No need for evidence if there is a confession. Do not get me wrong if the guy indeed did and he commited a crime in the USA that's life for you. Even so in most judiciaries the confession is very irrelevant as it should be.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DrkShadow on Sunday April 21 2019, @01:29AM
That might be part of the problem. Yeah, he plead guilty to the crime. Most everyone charged pleads guilty to the crime. That's the only way to get on with your life. (In some years.)
That seems like a huge error.
Most of them didn't commit the crime, though. Can't ever know for sure. No viable evidence is presented, no viable defense is presented -- it's just too much work and risk and expense and time to defend yourself, if it's even possibly to show your innocence. Simply representing you as a bad person is enough to ruin your life -- and simply walking into a courtroom gets you labeled that way. All of this seems like a huge problem.
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Saturday April 20 2019, @09:20PM (4 children)
When he says he's grown up and changed, for some reason I believe him. Reminds me of me.
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 20 2019, @09:37PM
When he says he's grown up and changed, I'm inclined to think that he finally listened to his lawyer (or was that the lawyer that his parents hired for him?)
Oh, I haven't read TFA or TFL, sorry if I'm out to lunch, it's normal...
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 20 2019, @09:44PM
Hard to say. I always wondered if he knew more about WannaCry than he let on.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 21 2019, @09:32AM (1 child)
Is it illegal to write malware? I've been collecting VX for many years, I hope possesion isn't illegal.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 21 2019, @03:12PM
?? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VX_(nerve_agent) [wikipedia.org]
Not a good idea to collect this!
(Score: 2) by mendax on Saturday April 20 2019, @10:27PM (6 children)
Apparently, the charges were not "bullshit" as Marcus was quoted as saying.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by takyon on Saturday April 20 2019, @11:08PM (3 children)
Maybe. But people will admit guilt and sing the prosecutor's tune if they don't think they can beat the charges, even if they're innocent.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by canopic jug on Sunday April 21 2019, @04:10AM (2 children)
Maybe. But people will admit guilt and sing the prosecutor's tune if they don't think they can beat the charges, even if they're innocent.
Or if they're faced with 5 years of legal fights to be followed by a 1000 years in US prison once their money runs out. Innocent people often plead guilty anyway [nybooks.com] just to have a chance at moving on. Actual innocence or guilt is irrelevant in a plea "deal" [theatlantic.com] and it seems, at least according to ScribeD, that this was a "plea bargain". I won't link there until they fix their layout, it's unreadable even when pasting to an editor, so it is possible I have read incorrectly. However, if it was a plea "deal" then it is entirely likely that the main charges really were bullshit, but possible they could get him on something minor or had a credible threat about being able to run the money clock out on him.
Read more at The Marshall Project [themarshallproject.org].
The court document's text at ScribeD, may or may not be authentic, has the title "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, V. Case No. 17-CR-124 MARCUS HUTCHINS, Defendant. PLEA AGREEMENT"
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 21 2019, @08:36AM (1 child)
That Atlantic story doesn't help your argument. First she told the cops she did it. Later she told a reporter she didn't. Guilty? Who knows. But you can't say this is an innocent person who plead guilty, which your argument requires. The prosecutor may well know more. And isn't it a crime to lie to the police? So she was guilty of either the drug charge or obstruction.
(Score: 2) by canopic jug on Monday April 22 2019, @09:42AM
If you don't like that one article, there are plenty of others that describe the problem with plea agreements [reason.com]. It has been a bad problem for decades now. It's just a matter of looking in the search engines. Apparently nearly all criminal cases are dealt with via plea "bargains", some claim 95% of those cases. The "deals" are usually reached by stacking charges against the defendant and leveraging that plus incarceration to force them to submit a guilty plea. Part of it is due to the perverse incentives provided by evaluating the success of prosecutors based on their conviction rates. In effect they are rewarded even if they put away innocent people.
A case like that which should have been higher profile than it was would have been that of Reality Winner. She lifted the lid on election interference, yet none of the complicit parties have been even reprimanded, let aone punished.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 21 2019, @12:15AM
Given hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, and a chance of still getting a 20 year sentence, versus a 2 year stretch and only a few $10k in legal fees - you may agree to whatever the prosecutor proposes for you, along with publicly doing mea culpas.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday April 21 2019, @07:33PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves