United States v. Boceanu
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15292 (Feb. 4, 2013)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
Bogdan Boceanu (defendant) was charged with conspiracy to commit bank fraud and conspiracy to commit credit-card fraud. The government (plaintiff) introduced evidence at trial that People’s Bank customers received a phishing mail in June 2005; the phishing email directed recipients to a fake website for People’s Bank; the information provided by customers who responded to the phishing email was sent to [email protected], which was the email address used by Ovidiu-Ionut Nicola-Roman (defendant); Boceanu used the email address [email protected]; Boceanu and coconspirators exchanged emails containing stolen names, addresses, social-security numbers, and credit-card numbers, as well as a program for extracting email addresses; and Boceanu and Nicola-Roman had an email exchange in June 2005 in which Boceanu requested a list of working credit numbers and Nicola-Roman responded with a subset of the numbers contained in the original email. Boceanu was convicted and moved for judgment of acquittal of the conspiracy to commit bank fraud, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction because the only evidence connecting him to the conspiracy were the emails exchanged with Nicola-Roman around the same time that Nicola-Roman sent the phishing email to People’s Bank customers.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hall, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 789,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
