That still seems harsh if T-Mobile rent extraction was the only true harm and there wasn't eg sim-swapping or id theft involved.
(e: I missed the $25M proceeds. Changes my thoughts a little, but still, 10 yrs seems like a lot if T-mobile was the only victim... seems like taking all his money and then some, compensating T-Mobile for actual costs, and giving the rest to the local public school or whatever would be better all-around and we can all shed some crocodile tears for the telcos.)
It is not rent extraction if people choose to accept a subsidized device at T-Mobile’s expense in exchange for T-Mobile knowing that device will have to be used on T-Mobile’s network, and hence resulting in at least a certain amount of revenue.
That is just a contract that one side wants to break. It is extremely easy for anyone who does not want a locked to carrier phone to buy an unlocked phone and use it with any carrier they want.
I didn't say we should legalize what he did. I said the punishment sounds harsh.
T-Mobile already receives an incredible amount of assistance from the state, both direct and indirect. Erasing an eighth of someone's life at the taxpayer's expense on top of all of that seems like a bit much.
And don't worry, I too realize the telcos are people too. I stipulated we would all cry crocodile tears for the telco and pay them back for whatever their actual losses were (which were likely a tiny fraction of his proceeds).
It is harsh but he helped people commit fraud against T Mobile and received 25 million for it, which must be a fraction of what his clients gained, or else they wouldn't pay him.
I am fairly sympathetic to white-collar crime but after he made his first million he could have sat down and thought about the morality of it all. He was already rich so he had the leisure time to contemplate perhaps not breaking the law...
Now, if he decided the law was immoral and it was correct to break it in protest then that is defensible but that's not the case here.
Instead, he continued to break the law but labeled it as “official t mobile unlocks” in order to trick people who had no intention of becoming criminal action into giving him money to do the crime. That to me is beyond the line.
For me, this is akin to selling weed labeled as expensive oregano because you want to expand your market beyond potheads. People deserve to know what they are getting into.
Considering even the US government uses SMS 2FA, which means control of your phone number is tantamount to authorization to do things on your behalf, there should be severe penalties for breaking into the systems of phone network operators.
Not that the SMS 2FA is the appropriate way to be doing things, but it is what it is, and the government is not wanting to take on any liability, and the mobile networks do not want any liability (nor should it be foisted upon them), keeping the punishment high for stuff like this seems like the best we can hope for.
> which were likely a tiny fraction of his proceeds
The losses probably substantially exceed his proceeds because these unlocking services enable all kinds of other fraud. If he charges $50 to unlock a $1000 phone that someone got on credit and will never pay for and that will be exported to China where it can now be freely used thanks to the unlock, then what is T-Mobile's loss amount - $50 or $1000?
There isn't always ID theft involved though, it's often just a small scale "bust out" where a person needs $300 and is willing to ruin their credit to get it.
My little theory is the more likely it is for individuals to copy such a criminal scheme the more the justice system wants to set an example with the punishment.
WRT schemes like this one, maybe so. I don't know. But on the broader point of hard prison sentences being good for deterrence, the US recidivism rate speaks for itself.
A trial costs both sides a lot of time and money. In most cases the defendants really are guilty (they had so much evidence on this guy I'm not sure why he even chose to go trial), the government has a lot of evidence against them and they would receive no benefit from going to trial unless they are being prosecuted under some new theory of liability that they could maybe convince a jury is invalid. Honestly it's surprising the conviction rate is only 95% instead of 99.9%. Federal law enforcement has multi billion dollar budgets, they can issue warrants and subpoenas and wiretaps, they can give "friendly knocks" and threaten people with jail time for not cooperating. How do they ever even lose?
Lack of motivation. Relatively few people on the prosecution side truly care about winning, especially as time passes.
Cases can easily take years, personnel changes ruin everything.
If you have money and aren't accused of anything totally crazy, you can easily completely ruin the governments chances by simply getting a few of the main people involved private sector jobs. This happens every day.
(e: I missed the $25M proceeds. Changes my thoughts a little, but still, 10 yrs seems like a lot if T-mobile was the only victim... seems like taking all his money and then some, compensating T-Mobile for actual costs, and giving the rest to the local public school or whatever would be better all-around and we can all shed some crocodile tears for the telcos.)