Preso na HOPE #6: Tocar em um agente do FBI só pode dar problemas...

26/07/2006 Written by Marcelo Almeida (Vympel)

arrestStephen Rom­bom (aka: Steve Ram­bam) foi preso, no mesmo hotel onde hacker magazine’s 2600 e club’s HOPE num­ber six (Hack­ers on Planet Earth), estava sendo orga­ni­zada a con­fer­ên­cia em Nova Iorque, por agentes de FBI neste final de sem­ana.

Enquanto não estava falando ofi­cial­mente no evento da con­fer­ên­cia, Ram­bam teria feito uma con­versa para­lela sobre assun­tos sen­síveis rel­a­tivos à exe­cução de lei de téc­ni­cas usadas em inves­ti­gações como o uso de polí­grafos, DNA e vig­ilân­cia. Mais infor­mações pode ser lidas adi­cional­mente sobre Ram­bam na Pal­lo­rium, uma com­pan­hia que ele fun­dou.

Zone-​h estava na con­fer­ên­cia de hacker quando a cor­re­ria acon­te­ceu, e havia muita espec­u­lação exata­mente sobre por que Ram­bam tinha sido lev­ado em custó­dia…

Den­tro de min­u­tos muitos par­tic­i­pantes da con­fer­ên­cia pro­puseram o uso de camise­tas com o dizer “Free Stephen” por causa dos boatos que apare­ciam.

Uma maior cober­tura da con­fer­ên­cia estará logo pub­li­cada do Zone-​H.
A acusação ofi­cial pode ser lida con­tra Stephen pode lida a seguir, onde indica que Ram­bam ata­cou e depois usou coisas que ele roubou do agente do FBI (como iden­ti­dade etc…) em Abril de 2006. _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_ 

MAR­CIA ISAACSON/​STEVEN D. FELDMAN

Assis­tant United States Attor­neys Before: 

HON­OR­ABLE THEODORE H. KATZ 

United States Mag­is­trate Judge 

South­ern Dis­trict of New York

– — - — - — - — - — - — - — - x

COM­PLAINT UNITED STATES OF AMER­ICA : Vio­la­tion of –v.- : 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503 & 2 STEVEN ROM­BOM, : a/​k/​a “Steven Rambam,”

COUNTY OF OFFENSE: : NEW YORK COUNTY

Defen­dant.
:
– — - — - — - — - — - — - — - x
SOUTH­ERN DIS­TRICT OF NEW YORK, ss.:

THEODORE V. CACIOPPI, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is a Spe­cial Agent with the Fed­eral Bureau of Inves­ti­ga­tion, and charges as fol­lows: COUNT ONE

1. In or about April 2006, in the South­ern Dis­trict of New York and else­where, STEVEN ROM­BOM, a/​k/​a “Steven Ram­bam,” the defen­dant, unlaw­fully, wil­fully, know­ingly and cor­ruptly did influ­ence, obstruct and impede, and did endeavor to influ­ence, obstruct and impede the due admin­is­tra­tion of jus­tice, to wit, ROM­BOM imper­son­ated an agent of the Fed­eral Bureau of Inves­ti­ga­tion in order to intim­i­date a Gov­ern­ment con­fi­den­tial infor­mant in a pend­ing crim­i­nal mat­ter for which a trial is sched­uled. (Title 18, United States Code, Sec­tions 1503 and 2.)

The bases for my knowl­edge and for the fore­go­ing charge are, in part, as follows:

2. I am a Spe­cial Agent with the Fed­eral Bureau of Inves­ti­ga­tion (“FBI”), and I have been per­son­ally involved in the inves­ti­ga­tion of this mat­ter. This affi­davit is based upon my con­ver­sa­tions with other law-​enforcement agents and oth­ers, and my exam­i­na­tion of reports and records. 

Because this affi­davit is being sub­mit­ted for the lim­ited pur­pose of estab­lish­ing prob­a­ble cause, it does not include all the facts that I have learned dur­ing the course of my inves­ti­ga­tion. Where the con­tents of doc­u­ments and the actions, state­ments and con­ver­sa­tions of oth­ers are reported herein, they are reported in sub­stance and in part, except where oth­er­wise indicated.

3. Based on my con­ver­sa­tions with other agents of the FBI as well as my review of records, I have learned the following:

a. In or about Jan­u­ary 2003, a grand jury sit­ting in the South­ern Dis­trict of New York returned a one count indict­ment against Albert San­toro, charg­ing him with one count of money laun­der­ing, in vio­la­tion of Title 18, United States Code, Sec­tion 1956(a)(3)(B). Trial in United States v. San­toro, 03 Cr. 484 (TPG) is cur­rently sched­uled for August 28, 2006.

b. The indict­ment was the result of an under­cover investigation

that relied, in part, on infor­ma­tion that a con­fi­den­tial infor­mant (“CI”) pro­vided to the FBI. c. In cor­re­spon­dence and in court pro­ceed­ings, Santoro’s coun­sel has rep­re­sented that Santoro’s defense cen­ters on the actions of the CI, includ­ing the alle­ga­tion that the CI entrapped San­toro.

d. San­toro, through his attor­ney, hired Pal­lo­rium Inc., a pri­vate inves­tiga­tive com­pany whose senior direc­tor is STEVEN ROM­BOM, a/​k/​a “STEVEN RAM­BAM,” the defen­dant, to inves­ti­gate the CI

e. Accord­ing to Pallorium’s web­site, it has offices and affil­i­ates worldwide.

4. Based on my con­ver­sa­tions with the CI, I know that the CI is mar­ried. His spouse’s mother, step-​father and step-​sister reside in Rose­mead, Cal­i­for­nia. (“The Cal­i­for­nia family.”) 

5. In or about April and June 2006, assisted by a trans­la­tor when nec­es­sary, I spoke indi­vid­u­ally with each mem­ber of the Cal­i­for­nia fam­ily. From these con­ver­sa­tions and my review of records, I learned, among other things, the fol­low­ing infor­ma­tion:

a. On or about April 21, 2006, ROM­BOM went to the Cal­i­for­nia family’s house. One of the Cal­i­for­nia fam­ily mem­bers (“W-​1″) informed me that he saw ROM­BOM exit a mid-​sized sedan, which was gold in color, and approach the door to the house. When W-​1 answered the door, ROM­BOM asked if the CI was present at the house. W-​1 told ROM­BOM that the CI was not there.

b. ROM­BOM then entered the house. Upon enter­ing, ROM­BOM intro­duced him­self to W-​1 as a gov­ern­ment inves­ti­ga­tor, quickly flashed what appeared to be an offi­cial gov­ern­ment iden­ti­fi­ca­tion, and began to ques­tion W-​1 about the CI. After W– 1 told ROM­BOM that he was the step-​father of the CI’s spouse, ROM­BOM told W-​1 to call his wife (“W-​2”) on her cell phone and tell her to return to the house. W-​1 com­plied. After some time had passed and W-​2 had not returned to the house, ROM­BOM directed that W-​1 again call W-​2 and tell her to hurry up. W-​1 complied.

c. When W-​2 arrived at the house, ROM­BOM intro­duced him­self to her as an “FBI” agent, quickly flash­ing a wal­let con­tain­ing what appeared to W-​2 to be a lam­i­nated card with an
offi­cial gov­ern­ment gold seal or badge. 

d. ROM­BOM told W-​2 that he was inves­ti­gat­ing the CI and needed to ask W-​2 ques­tions about the CIROM­BOM told W-​2 in sub­stance that the CI was a very bad and dan­ger­ous per­son and that there were many things about the CI that W-​2 did not know, includ­ing that the CI had been in jail many times. ROM­BOM showed W-​2 what appeared to be a mug shot of the CI

e. ROM­BOM also showed W-​2 some black and white pho­tographs that appeared to have been taken recently of the CI and the CI’s spouse (W-2’s daugh­ter.) W-​2 indi­cated that the pho­tographs appeared to have been taken through the front win­dows of the CI’s apart­ment in New York, New York. ROM­BOM told W-​2 that he did not take the pho­tographs per­son­ally but had a team of peo­ple in New York City who had taken the pho­tographs.

f. ROM­BOM also told W-​2 infor­ma­tion that he knew about the CI and W-2’s daugh­ter, includ­ing the names of the CI’s chil­dren (W-2’s grand­chil­dren) and where W-2’s daugh­ter had gone to high school.

g. ROM­BOM told W-​2 that her daugh­ter was in dan­ger because of the CI and that ROM­BOM was afraid for the safety of W– 2’s daughter.

h. ROM­BOM repeat­edly demanded that W-​2 pro­vide him with pho­tographs of the CI and any cor­re­spon­dence to or from the CIROM­BOM also ques­tioned W-​2 about where and how the CI worked.

i. While ROM­BOM was ques­tion­ing W-​1 and W-​2, the daugh­ter of W-​1 and W-​2 (“W-​3″) came home. W-​3 informed me that ROM­BOM quickly opened and closed a wal­let con­tain­ing what appeared to be an offi­cial gov­ern­ment iden­ti­fi­ca­tion card and began to ask W-​3 ques­tions. Accord­ing to W-​3, ROM­BOM stated in sub­stance that the CI was a very bad and dan­ger­ous per­son who had been in jail many times. 

j. When ROM­BOM left, he did not leave behind any busi­ness card or other mate­ri­als, nor did he leave the Cal­i­for­nia fam­ily with any way to con­tact him.

6. I have reviewed a court tran­script that reflects that, at a court pro­ceed­ing in United States v. Albert San­toro, a lawyer for ROM­BOM informed the court that it was ROM­BOM who went to the house of the Cal­i­for­nia fam­ily.

7. I have reviewed records from a car rental agency that reflect that ROM­BOM rented a vehi­cle on or about April 21, 2006 in the vicin­ity of the Los Ange­les, Cal­i­for­nia Inter­na­tional Air­port (“LAX”). Rose­mead, where the Cal­i­for­nia fam­ily lives, is approx­i­mately 31 miles from LAX. The records reflect that the car was a Buick LaCrosse, and was gold in color. WHERE­FORE, depo­nent prays that a war­rant be issued for STEVEN ROM­BOM, a/​k/​a “Steven Ram­bam,” the above-​named defen­dant, and that he be arrested and impris­oned, or bailed, as the case may be.

_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​

THEODORE V. CACIOPPI

Spe­cial Agent Fed­eral Bureau of Investigation

Sub­scribed and sworn to
before me this 21st day
of July 2006
_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​
HON­OR­ABLE THEODORE H. KATZ
UNITED STATES MAG­IS­TRATE


Share this content: