All of Mugshots.com's alleged co-owners arrested on extortion charges

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Source: Ars Technica

Smile! —

All of Mugshots.com’s alleged co-owners arrested on extortion charges

Mugshots.com is a "business permeated with fraud," California AG says.

Cyrus Farivar - May 17, 2018 11:50 pm UTC

Two alleged owners of Mugshots.com—Sahar Sarid and Thomas Keesee—have been arrested in south Florida on a recently issued California warrant. The notorious website publishes mugshots and then demands payment for their removal.

On Wednesday, the attorney general of California brought criminal charges against not only Saried and Keesee, but also Kishore Vidya Bhavnanie and David Usdan. The quartet has been charged with extortion, money laundering, and identity theft. ... Bhavnanie was arraigned by a Pennsylvania state judge also on Wednesday—his bail was reportedly set at $1.86 million. According to Tania Mercado, a spokeswoman for the California Attorney General's office, Usdan is also in custody.

"This pay-for-removal scheme attempts to profit off of someone else's humiliation," said Attorney General Becerra in a statement. "Those who can't afford to pay into this scheme to have their information removed pay the price when they look for a job, housing, or try to build relationships with others. This is exploitation, plain and simple."

In the same statement, Becerra's office said that these defendants "extracted more than $64,000 in removal fees from approximately 175 individuals with billing addresses in California. Nationally, the defendants took more than $2 million in removal fees from approximately 5,703 individuals for the same period." ... Mugshots.com did not respond to Ars' request for comment.

Read more: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/05/all-of-mugshots-coms-alleged-co-owners-arrested-on-extortion-charges/

---

Retweeted by Popehat: https://twitter.com/Popehat

Ars Technica
‏Verified account @arstechnica
27m27 minutes ago

All of http://Mugshots.com ’s alleged co-owners arrested on extortion charges http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/05/all-of-mugshots-coms-alleged-co-owners-arrested-on-extortion-charges/ … by @cfarivar

Link to tweet

[Xipe Totec]

1. Will they pay themselves to get their mugshots removed, or how does that work? nt

[Judi Lynn]

10. Good one! n/t

[BadGimp]

2. I'm conflicted here...

[eggplant]

5. About what?

[BadGimp]

7. A few things...

but first - Full Disclosure: Sahar Sarid is a friend. I've known him for 15 years, and watched him build this business. I thought he sold his interest. I'll have to ask him.

- The info is public. Any good background check will reveal it. So where is the crime?

- I don't see a legitimate case of Extortion. Maybe I'm being myopic.

- If someone launched Pedophiles.com and did the same thing would it be different?

I am thinking one important problem is they list Arrests and do not adequately disclose outcome or sentencing etc. Perhaps that's the issue.

Still processing...

[Liberty Belle]

12. They charge people to remove mugshots, which is the extortion part.

If you're poor, the mugshot stays up and you can't find work or get into good schools etc., and sometimes the mugshots were from arrests based on mistaken identity, police errors, etc. or charges were dropped for whatever reasons.

If you're rich, you can buy your way out of trouble, even if you were arrested and later convicted.

So it's blatantly unfair and also misleading since they don't remove posts or at least add followup info if someone is cleared.

[moriah]

15. I used their site to find my rapist, who they refused to prosecute...

... was arrested again for an assault on a female. Have also used them in my attempt to track my little siblings' egg donor as she goes through her sad life of drug-related prostitution.

I always recall there being a big disclaimer that these were arrests only.

My local newspaper posts shots, with the same disclaimer. They may not stay forever, and they personally removed a few after, say, arrestees died from asthma in lockup, without any charge.

So maybe it would have been completely legal if not for deciding to get greedy with the people angry their public records were posted and saying, "Fine, pay us and we'll take it down".

[eggplant]

16. Their entire business model is based on paying them to NOT post things.

The crime is their business model, not the content.

You are being myopic.

No, it would be the same, if they were posting mugshots of suspects who have not been convicted.

[Jayjay47]

45. Few things that I have to tell u

He might be friend of you but to be honest with you but What ever he has done is not ethical and unlawful:

Questions for u:
Why they registered mugshots.com mailing address is carrabian islands?
Why do they registered there hosting website in Australia?
Why they were redirecting victims to unpublisharrest.com?
Why they don’t display any contact information of mugshot.com?
Why it took so long for identifying your friend? Why do California forensic department has to trace your friend?

Did you ever heard about flicker.com conspiracy? Do u know that ur friend has been involved in it? If not please go through it???

My last question
Did you ever been arrested wrongfully??

One of my family member has been wrongfully arrested last year. He Was released following day and his case ended up as “NO File”. He went and got his records expunged. All the govt agencies has removed his arrest record but why your friend haven’t???. He lost his job because of your friend unprofessional practice.An innocent person still going through the embarrassment, due to ur friends unethical practice.

[Judi Lynn]

3. What a great country! These entrepreneurs have discovered new ways to torment people, for profit! nt

[Mike Rows His Boat]

18. Sorta like dentistry...

Pay me $1200, or the rotten tooth stays.

[Judi Lynn]

22. Right. Pay in advance! That's the ticket. n/t

[hlthe2b]

4. Wow...Who couldn't have seen THAT coming...

[X_Digger]

6. Aren't mugshots public record?

Not sure I see any illegality in publishing public records.

[dembotoz]

8. Mugshots have to do with arrests not convictions

If u can pay to have pics removed it is easy to see the evil.
Am I more deserving of extra punishment than a rich man?

[X_Digger]

11. Aren't arrests public records? Open government, etc?

If I run a background check on a prospective employee, can't I find out if they have been arrested?

[dembotoz]

13. Would think convicted would be of more interest

[X_Digger]

14. Maybe so, but arrests are important, too. (and are public record.) n/t

[dembotoz]

17. Soooo innocence til proven guilty is a joke... gotcha

[X_Digger]

19. Do you think arrests shouldn't be public record? Secret courts?

I'll thank you to keep your fingers out of my mouth. If I want to say something, I'll do it myself- besides, I don't know where your fingers have been.

I know when a straw man is inbound when a poster starts a sentence with "So...".

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal concept. Not being convicted of a crime has nothing to do with a person's actual guilt or innocence.

See Zimmerman, e.g.

[dembotoz]

20. no secret courts but an arrest don't mean convicted...and you can not undo the damage of false

accusations

you talk about putting words in your mouth and you babble about secret courts....
ironic if you could understand

[X_Digger]

21. An arrest is an arrest, not a conviction. Who said they're the same? *looks around*

Your intimation seems to be that somehow arrests should be expunged, hidden, or otherwise not considered public.

That about sum it up?

If not, then what? Do tell.

[dembotoz]

23. The post is about a scumbag extorting money to get

Off the scumbag website. I find that appalling...

[X_Digger]

24. No, please, go ahead. Tell me what should happen to arrest records and mugshots.

Should they be taken out of public records?

[dembotoz]

26. Talking about a website and extortion guess u like both

[X_Digger]

27. Aww, does that question bother you?

Come on, don't be shy. Feel free to explain.

Please, proceed.

[dembotoz]

28. extortion does

enjoy the swamp

[X_Digger]

29. So, should arrest records be private? C'mon, speak up.

Should those not convicted be able to expunge their arrest records?

What?

The floor is yours.

Please, proceed.

[dembotoz]

30. arrest no but to turn it into extortion shame on you

[X_Digger]

31. So no change in the system.. gotcha. Thanks for finally answering. n/t

[dembotoz]

33. defender of extortion? you speak up

[X_Digger]

34. There you go, putting your fingers in my mouth again.

Recall, I started this subthread by stating that publishing public records in and of themselves isn't illegal per se.

Looking at the California law on extortion, I think the state's going to have a tough case.

The elements of California extortion are:

The defendant threatened to do one of the following to the alleged "victim":
a. Unlawfully injure or use force against him/her, a third party, or his/her property,
b. Accuse him/her or a relative or family member of a crime, OR
c. Expose a secret involving him/her or a family member, or connect any of them with some kind of crime, disgrace, or scandal;
When making the threat or using force, the defendant intended to force the "victim" into consenting to give him/her money or property or to do an official act;
As a result of the threat, the "victim" did consent to give the defendant money or property or do an official act; AND
The "victim" then actually did give the defendant money or property or perform the official act.

Arrests being public record, there is no 'secret', and in this case, the mugshot is already online.

Despicable? Absolutely. Extortion? Umm..

[dembotoz]

38. Bullshit...and u can. Put that in ur mouth

I tire of ur game

[X_Digger]

41. You're tired of agreeing that arrests are public records? Ohhkaay.

And you don't want to change the system..

[dembotoz]

44. No tired of ur support of extortion and scumbags

[FBaggins]

32. Your sophistry here is tiring

They weren't arrested for or charged with publishing public records... now were they?

[X_Digger]

35. No, but I imagine that their defense of the extortion charge will be straightforward:

Arrests being public record, there is no 'secret' to expose, and the mugshot is already online, so the action has already been taken.

(See separately where I mentioned the elements of extortion in CA.)

[FBaggins]

36. You've done quite a bit of "imagining" on the thread

You don't suppose that the prosecutors in CA might know just a little bit more about CA law than you learned from 30 seconds of googling?

For instance... the fact that something is a public record does not mean that it can't also be "secret" under the extortion definition?

[X_Digger]

37. Extortion could be the charge they're willing to bargain on. You think prosecutors are infallible?

That they don't sometimes overcharge in an effort to secure a conviction on a lesser charge?

MMkaaay.

[FBaggins]

39. A ridiculous response for at least three reasons

1 - It helps you not one bit on your initial (and oft repeated) error that something being a public record cannot therefore be part of an extortion claim. Your "Arrests being public record, there is no 'secret'" remains nonsensical.

2 - Prosecutors don't "overcharge" for bargaining purposes with charges that can't stand even if all alleged facts are true. ("Gee your honor... we know that nobody died. We just added the murder charge to encourage the defendant to plead guilty to the jaywalking" )Doing that would be prosecutorial misconduct.

3 - They aren't in a position to bargain down to a lesser conviction because the crime was committed in multiple states. They can only bargain for CA. IOW - they can't make an extortion charge in all of those other states go away, so defendants have no incentive to plead to a lesser included charge. It wouldn't stop other prosecutions (let alone all the potential civil suits).

[X_Digger]

40. Of course they do overcharge for things that don't work on their face.

Prosecutors have no obligation to charge only the things that they know they can make stick. Hell, if you ever get involved with things like the Innocence Project, you'll be appalled at the charges that a) a judge allowed, b) a defense attorney didn't question / challenge, and c) a jury convicted on.

Re #1 - California law says that a 'secret' is a fact that is not publicized, i.e. a fact is unknown to the general public or to someone who might be interested in it; i.e. Just because everyone doesn't know it doesn't make it secret.

Court documents (e.g. records of arrests) are public documents under California law. California has the model open government standards. So much so that they had to pass a law excluding car registrations.

Re 3# - We're dealing with a California case brought by California prosecutors because California residents were involved. What does any other state have to do with what I or you typed?!?

Each state's laws would have bearing on any other potential charges by other states' PAs.

[FBaggins]

42. Did you actually read what you posted?

So your mad googling skills finally found the definition for "secret" and you actually posted it as though it supported your position?

That's a particularly entertaining case of confirmation bias.

Prosecutors have no obligation to charge only the things that they know they can make stick.

I didn't say "things they can make stick", now did I? They can charge things that they aren't sure they can prove as long as they legitimately believe that the crime was committed. What they can't do is charge something that they know didn't occur. Your (again ridiculous) spin was that maybe the prosecutors agreed with you (that their actions did not amount to extortion) but added the charge for leverage. That would be prosecutorial misconduct.

Re #1 - California law says that a 'secret' is a fact that is not publicized, i.e. a fact is unknown to the general public or to someone who might be interested in it; i.e. Just because everyone doesn't know it doesn't make it secret.

Your "i.e." there is faulty. You listed the actual definition as the "in other words" and put your own (faulty) definition as being what the law says. Hint - it does not say that a secret is a fact that is not publicized. (BTW - if you read a judge's ruling from a year ago on the civil side, you would realize that even this faulty definition would fail you - because something being publicly available does not make it "publicized&quot . What the defendants are accused of does. They didn't just put things on their website. They posted them to social media and used SEO techniques to get their mugshots at the top of search engine hits so that their victims (and their potential employers/dates/in-laws/etc.) would find them.

Then we come to the funniest error. You actually read " a fact is unknown to the general public or to someone who might be interested in it" and claimed that it meant "Just because everyone doesn't know it doesn't make it secret." - which causes me to believe that English is not one of your first four languages. Because you got that exactly backwards. Something being publicly available does not mean that it is publicly known... and there's no way around "OR to someone who might be interested in it" - The accused actions clearly fall into that category. They want you to pay them to remove the mugshot before your next potential employer googles your name.

Court documents (e.g. records of arrests) are public documents

So? Once again... being a public document does not mean that something is "known to the general public". If you buy a home with your girlfriend and your spouse doesn't know about it... someone try to extort you by threatening to tell her won't be able to defend himself by claiming that the deed is on file with the county... because the spouse doesn't know it and couldn't be expected to find out in the normal course of things.

Re 3# - We're dealing with a California case brought by California prosecutors because California residents were involved. What does any other state have to do with what I or you typed?!?

Actually - there are already multiple states involved. But either way... this is pretty simple. Prosecutors often try to make deals... but they have to have something that the defendant wants. There's no advantage to admitting to some other crime to make this one go away... because CA can't really make it go away. They committed the same crime in dozens of states and none of the other ones is going to honor a deal that CA makes.

[X_Digger]

43. Lol, you certainly are in for a wake-up call if you ever get involved with actual cases

What they can't do is charge something that they know didn't occur. Your (again ridiculous) spin was that maybe the prosecutors agreed with you (that their actions did not amount to extortion) but added the charge for leverage. That would be prosecutorial misconduct.

And often that's the case- convictions are overturned, current and former attorneys are brought before their states' bar.

Your "i.e." there is faulty. You listed the actual definition as the "in other words" and put your own (faulty) definition as being what the law says. Hint - it does not say that a secret is a fact that is not publicized. (BTW - if you read a judge's ruling from a year ago on the civil side, you would realize that even this faulty definition would fail you - because something being publicly available does not make it "publicized". What the defendants are accused of does. They didn't just put things on their website. They posted them to social media and used SEO techniques to get their mugshots at the top of search engine hits so that their victims (and their potential employers/dates/in-laws/etc.) would find them.

You're mixing up the burden for civil extortion and criminal. See People v. Peniston for 'secret', generally.

Court documents (e.g. records of arrests) are public documents

So? Once again... being a public document does not mean that something is "known to the general public". If you buy a home with your girlfriend and your spouse doesn't know about it... someone try to extort you by threatening to tell her won't be able to defend himself by claiming that the deed is on file with the county... because the spouse doesn't know it and couldn't be expected to find out in the normal course of things.

Ignorance of a fact doesn't make it a secret. Taking incriminating photos of you and your girlfriend, or threatening to expose the relationship would be extortion. Setting up a site re-publishing deeds would not be.

A public document (see that adjective, 'public'?) cannot, by definition, be a secret. They're published in public court documents.

Fucking duh.

Actually - there are already multiple states involved. But either way... this is pretty simple. Prosecutors often try to make deals... but they have to have something that the defendant wants. There's no advantage to admitting to some other crime to make this one go away... because CA can't really make it go away. They committed the same crime in dozens of states and none of the other ones is going to honor a deal that CA makes.

The same would apply to the identity theft, or the money laundering. Of course no state can bargain for immunity against prosecution in another jurisdiction- that's patently absurd. Gun charges are routinely dismissed in exchange for a guilty plea to other included charges. That doesn't mean that federal prosecutors couldn't then charge the defendant.

[Stallion]

9. How Ironic

[Hortensis]

25. Good! Here in Georgia all arrests are public information

from inception, no waiting to humiliate and damage reputations until after and if the people are found guilty.

[removeslander]

46. I suppose there 2 sides of every coin

If I had never been arrested and didn't go to prison I would be lying to say that I probably would find it difficult to have sympathy for a simple 1 booking photo/mugshot in someone's index.

While I certainly cannot say I know Sarid or Keesee, the encounter I'm still dealing with is someone who is a ruthless criminal. Almost as ruthless as me, unfortunately not quite.

The major difference between him and I, unfortunately, I was cursed with morals and ethics. It gets in the way sometimes, but I'd prefer to be able to sleep at night, so I try to do the right thing. :/

So while the Defamation using booking photos to sabotage my efforts at acquiring leads for web design was questionable, the threatening my family, exposing children to identity theft, and this whole "STDRegistry" a site in which he's lied about several thousand people being HIV infected.... Officially a dirtbag by all manner of definitions!

Call it right, call it wrong, my personal stance is I'm going kill the industry. While it's technically legal for them to monetize selling removals, it's also legal for me to educate America on Reputation Management, and Free Effective Mugshot Removal Techniques.

I figure by flooding the market with a free solution, that should snuff the candle flame.