United States v. Kilbride

Riya SinghCase Summary

Conviction for sending millions of unsolicited, pornographic emails using fraudulent tactics to hide the sender's identities

United States v. Kilbride
507 F.Supp.2d 1051
In the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
Docket Number CR 05-0870-PHX-DGC
Before District Judge Campbell
Decided on August 24, 2007

Relevancy of the case: Conviction for sending millions of unsolicited, pornographic emails using fraudulent tactics to hide the sender’s identities

Statutes and Provisions Involved

  • The Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act (CAN-SPAM) of 2003, 15 U.S.C. §§ 7701-7713
  • 18 U.S. Code § 371 (Conspiracy to commit offence or to defraud United States)
  • 18 U.S. Code § 1037 (Fraud and related activity in connection with electronic mail)

Relevant Facts of the Case

  • Kilbride and Schaffer operated a lucrative spam email business, sending millions of unsolicited pornographic emails that generated $1,417,161 in 2003.
  • They moved their operation overseas to evade the CAN-SPAM Act, yet continued sending emails from Schaffer’s home in Arizona and hence were charged with violating the CAN-SPAM Act.

Prominent Arguments by the Counsels

  • The defendants claimed that:
    • The indictment was defective for not alleging an illegal objective in the conspiracy charge and argued that their actions involved legal bulk email distribution, misleading the jury.
    • They asserted that the evidence did not prove the violation of the CAN-SPAM Act.
  • The prosecution contended that:
    • The evidence shows defendants’ intentional falsification of email headers and registration information to hide their identities and avoid detection.
    • Ghe defendants knowingly violated the CAN-SPAM Act by transmitting millions of commercial emails with materially false header information.

Opinion of the Bench

  • The court relied on testimony from various witnesses, including the defendants’ employees and overseas business affiliates, along with extensive documentary evidence.

Final Decision

  • The court denied the defendants’ motion for a judgment of acquittal or a new trial, upholding the jury’s guilty verdict on all counts.