Judge Sentences Spammer to Nine Years
A man convicted in the nation's first felony case against illegal spamming was sentenced to nine years in prison Friday for bombarding Internet users with millions of junk e-mails.

However, Loudoun County Circuit Judge Thomas Horne delayed the start of Jeremy Jaynes' prison term while the case is appealed, saying the law is new and raises constitutional questions.

A jury had recommended the nine-year term for the Raleigh, N.C., man.

Jaynes, 30, who was considered among the top 10 spammers in the world at the time of his arrest, used the Internet to peddle pornography and sham products and services such as a "FedEx refund processor," prosecutors said. Thousands of people fell for his e-mails, and prosecutors said Jaynes' operation grossed up to $750,000 per month.

Jaynes was convicted in November for using false Internet addresses and aliases to send mass e-mail ads through an AOL server in Loudoun County, where America Online is based. Under Virginia law, sending unsolicited bulk e-mail itself is not a crime unless the sender masks his identity.

While prosecutors presented evidence of just 53,000 illegal e-mails, authorities believe Jaynes was responsible for spewing out 10 million e-mails a day. Prosecutors said Jaynes made millions of dollars from the illegal venture.

Prosecutor Lisa Hicks-Thomas said she was pleased with the ruling and confident that the law would be upheld on appeal.

But defense attorney David Oblon argued that nine years was far too long given that Jaynes was charged as an out-of-state resident with violating a Virginia law that had taken effect just weeks before. He planned to challenge both the constitutionality of the law, as well as its applicability to Jaynes.

"We have no doubt that we will win on appeal, therefore any sentence is somewhat moot. Still, the sentence is not what we recommended and we're disappointed," Oblon said outside court.

Horne said he might also reconsider the sentence if Jaynes loses the appeal.

"I do not believe a person should go to prison for a law that is invalid," he said. "There are substantial legal issues that need to be brought before the appellate court."

A judge has ruled Maryland's anti-spam law unconstitutional because it seeks to regulate commerce outside the state's borders. However, an appeals court in California and the Washington state Supreme Court have upheld state laws that had been declared unconstitutional by lower courts on grounds similar to the December ruling in Maryland.

Many states have criminal laws against spam, but Virginia's makes it easier than others for prosecutors to obtain a felony conviction, which carries more jail time than a misdemeanor, said Quinn Jalli of the online marketing firm Digital Impact.

Jaynes told the judge that regardless of how the appeal turns out, "I can guarantee the court I will not be involved in the e-mail marketing business again." He remains under $1 million bond.

The jury also convicted Jaynes's sister, Jessica DeGroot, but recommended only a $7,500 fine. Her conviction was later dismissed by the judge. A third defendant, Richard Rutkowski of Cary, N.C., was acquitted of all charges.
Source

BWAHAHAHA!!!! JUSTICE AGAINST SPAMMERS AT LAST!!!!! WOOOOOOO!!!!!

good! take that you basterd!

Good job.

But for some reason, I feel as if my leg is being pulled.

Nine years in prison for spamming?

I have never known of anything such as that.. Spam, being among the inevitable list of death and taxes, even doesn't deserve nine years in prison.

MY thoughts exactly.

If thats true, 9 years is a little harsh, especially for a first case and shaky law system.

Spam doesn't deserve nine years, are you mad?

The guy committed serious fraud and grossed almost a million a months, this is crime on a serious level. Added to which spam clogs up millions of inboxes around the world and causes many problems for businesses through viruses and explicit content... all unsolicited. They also make online life a misery for unaware, unsavvy home users who find their computers infected with spyware, viruses and God knows what else what. There are so many scams it is unreal.

Just because it's done via computer doesn't mean it's not a serious crime. He will serve as an example and a deterrent to other spammers, and I hope the crackdown continues... 9 years is a fair sentence.

Richdog, you ever see the adverts 'YOU WOULDNT ACCEPT IT IN REAL LIFE, WHY ACCEPT IT ONLINE?'. What you just said reminds me of that

lol nope I can't say i've seen it.

Prettey much it's garbage trucks dropping loads of letters on peoples doorsteps (SPAM) or people sneezeing in eachothers faces on trains

9 years is definetly not to harsh, if anything lineant(sp?) like richdog said, almost a million a month on emailing people and scamming them out of there money...not cool, not cool at all

I disagree. Here in the UK MURDER is not much more than that. For a test case thats VERY harsh.

That's a good comparison, Walken.

Spam will continue as if this man's sentence hadn't existed at all. It is fearless, it is inevitable, and I think it may actually be a physically-harmless form that contributes to society's upskilling to be patient, forthbearing and intelligent through reviewing methods of avoiding spam to the most.

That's pretty harsh

Imagine him in jail....

"So what are you here for?"
"Spamming."

heh XD

They should have just banned him instead

Banned him from the internet? Hey, like an ASBO!

Is that a joke? It contributes to society's upskilling to be patient, forthbearing and intelligent? Wow, if you are being serious, just wow... reality-check needed!

And for the record people get banged up for 10 years for fraud and all manner of non-violent crimes. Just because they were not physical does not mean that are not serious, not at all. I am really surprised by some of the replies in this thread. This scammer leeched money off of millions of people, some of who will have been poor and underpriveleged with little to spare. He did it all knowing exactly what damage he was causing emotionally, psychologically and financially, the disruption to business etc. How many times... getting a million a month is SERIOUS ORGANISED CRIME!

Some of you people need to think about things a little more I feel... think about ALL of the implications of a crime, not just "Oh it wasn't physical it's not so bad", because that is a very irresponsible, uncaring, and near-shameful attitude to have for the millions of his victims who suffered.

9 years is at worst lenient and 100% appropriate for crime of this level...

lol Richdog

Heh damn where's my soapbox to stand on when I need it.

I think you left it in the kitchen

Yes, but still for a test case it's VERY harsh. Whether or not it was deserved.

If it was deserved then it can't really be considered harsh can it...?

And it will serve as a pretty good warning to the other lowlives who do it...

I'm a kiwi, so I wouldn't know what a soapbox is, or what expression it implies.

Alright, now in response to your post - Richdog.

The sentence is harsh because the victims of this spam-scam will receive naught reimbursement from him. Wow, so sentencing him excessively in jail is going to bring back all the money he stole? No - it only fulfils a very primitive interior of human beings, which is to execute what we impulsively desire of this criminal, regardless of how much the border of justice is crossed.

I would imagine that the methods this spam-scammer used, was the exploitation of peoples gullibility. Good job on him, I would rather criminals administer those wake-up, reality-checks to the populus, than progressing in time and finding out, that our closest friends had vulnerable minds that buy the idea of anything, and everything. In that sense, it suggests that our society's view should broaden, and improve the mind of reasoning.

Ahh right so because the victims may not get their money back we shouldn't punish him, I see the logic on that one. After all the biggest deterrent for him and others who are planning on mass-fraud would be for us to give them the impression that they'll get away with it fairly lightly, right? Yup, makes sense.

And of course, people shouldn't be such idiots should they, I mean why everyone in the world isn't born street-wise and highly intelligent with the ability to never make a mistake i'll never know... what was God thinking?

Yeah I like that, the best way for people to receive a reality-check is to lose their money and have the quality of their lives severely reduced, serves them right for being such blinding idiots. After all how can it be the scammers fault... if people didn't keep falling for it they wouldn't do it, right? Yeah, they are quite blameless now I think about it...

Yes, shame on those blinding idiots.
However, nine years should have been reduced for his activity wasn't all financially detrimental, it would have benefited computer technicians too.
These sectors have criminals to thank, you know.

lol that is not even remotely justifiable, in fact it's quite ludicrous.

Kerkido, your arguement is quite odd, as if in fact there was no need for those computer technicians then perhaps more money would be spent elsewhere......

Kerkido, if you go into a shop and buy something that is broken, or it does not have the capacity to do what it is described to do, do you expect a refund, or do you sit back and say....Well, I was stupid enough to spend my money on something that I expected to work, but didn't, so therfore I should where the costs, not the person who sold me the product....

Hmmm....750,000 a month....9 years Jail...... If he did it for 2 months hed be getting paid over 100,000 per year for his jail time....I dont think he should care, considering hed be in a minimal security prison.... If he is concerned about his punishment, perhaps not commiting a crime would be the best way to avoid that....

Richdog, you da man

Perhaps a very heavy fine would be more appropriate?

I can't believe you're actually defending fraud. What you're describing is basically social darwinism.

Society and the market depend on mutual trust. Confidence men abuse this trust. They ruin people's lives in the process. They often do it to the most vulnerable among us - the elderly, the poor and the desperate.

This bastard deserves what he got.

Agreed, RedNeck, much like how banks and loan sharks work hard to get those in debt even deeper within it.

Welcome back

No, it wouldn't. I just can't understand how some poeple do not seem to be able to realise that this guy committed a serious crime. How would a heavy fine be more appropriate? He'd just make it back through spamming again!

And Redneck, I can't believe it either, we live in a crazy world...

That's quite enough!
Of course it's a no brainer to know instantly that fraud is regarded as a very severe crime, it would mean that such employers of fraudulent methods are actually promoting the line of work they do simply for the fact that the aim of the game was to scam the most money.
Of course it's out of the question to allow such schemes to run successfully over the vulnerable, such as the elderly, children or otherwise - for the disadvantage was already existing before yet another disadvantage would be added through financial stress.
It would be soooo obvious that this type of crime should be hated with all might and wrath through the harsh sentence of one man, to set an example of what is to come among successors of his nature.
HOWEVER. As I had pointed out before, spam being one of the inevitable things a human being should expect to encounter, at what point will the prevention of all things in its nature be considered as crime? Taxes and death - it will always be with us, for it is a keystone in the functioning of society no matter how vulnerable we are, or how financially stressed one may be, it is a burden of which the standards of humanity must surpass in order for its correct functioning.

What do you think, RichDog?
Just to follow up.

Kerkido, what exaclty is your point? The gentleman was given the sentence for fraud, which he commited via Spam, not given the sentence for spamming.....

The method he did so is irrelevent......

My point is, at what extent will crime be considered at. I mean, via spam is the exploitation of vulnerable individuals.. So therefore, why not ban casinos, cigarrettes, things which contribute actually nothing but damage to an individual. Exploitation at its greatest, and most obvious form.

Those things do not promise something, and give nothing. They do not commit fraud, they are a completely seperate subject. On the same note you could ban the internet for having certain types of pornography available under that ideal. (casino does not just give damage to the individual, but thats another ballpark)

Whatever aspect in life, there will always be those who use it without ethics, it is important for us to punish those who do, and do as much as we can to prevent it in the future. Prevention often is a cure....

Almost anything can be damaging to someone, but we dont choose to get spam in email. no matter how many filters you have, someone will always find away around it.

hopefully it will kick some sense into spammers, im sick of getting "shag better with this wonder pill!" and "low morgage rates!" spam as of this moment I currently have 53 spam emails about those two topics.

and yes it actually say shag

why would someone make this a crime

Because they were vegetarians?

^^^^^^^

What they said basically, Kerkido. You're comparing spam with completely irrelevant things and trying to come up with something coherent. Trying to add 2 + 2 and getting 5 if you will. How you can compare cigarettes and casinos to spam I will never know, the mind boggles. People go there or smoke of their own free will. Spam isn't based on choice... can't you see that?

The only reason spam is so widespread is because there were no proper laws to combat it. Now there are, and people will pay the price for their serious crimes like anyone else.

It is all pretty straightforward really... serious fraud is serious fraud no matter how it's done, i'm not really sure what you're argument is...