
Now ....
.... only taxes are certain!
---------> Mine's the one with a variety of certificates in the pocket!
A US man has been sentenced to 81 months in jail for faking his own death by hacking government systems and officially marking himself as deceased. The US Department of Justice on Tuesday detailed the case of Jesse Kipf, 39, who was sent down for computer fraud and aggravated identity theft. In January 2023, Kipf used the …
And death can and will not shield you from paying your taxes.
I imagine strictly speaking your estate. The concept of "you" post mortem would be a fairly tenuous at best. Not even the IRS could manage to have you kicked out of the heavenly choir or kicked down a circle or two of Hades (depending on your ultimate destination) for tax arrears.
This chap's (Kipf) other but related nefarious activities rather mark him as a generally bad hat.
Any amusement with the audacity of his avoiding his family law obligations by counterfeiting his own death evaporates when you realize he was just a run of the mill, dumb cybercriminal wannabe.
either:
a) was talking about some form of state estate tax, or
b) didn't know what he was talking about, or
c) was a scam artist and intent on keeping the money himself.
As noted by the AC below, it was $12.9 mil as of last year, now $13.6 mil. I had to deal with my SO's estate and I made sure to inform myself of all details before I even bothered to go to anyone else to help me deal with it.
Without casting aspersions on the case here (this guy sounds like a waste of oxygen several times over), the concept of marriage, divorce and obligations to the child in the US is MASSIVELY biased against the dad. Women (often the mother, but not always) are basically unassailable in the courts unless they've REALLY gone to town on criminal/antisocial behavior.
It's distinctly possible (again: unlikely here with this loser) that a man is not the biological father, not in a relationship, or - as in a couple of a particularly noteworthy cases - has never even met the woman or child concerned - yet the courts still stick them for child support obligations.
Divorce is even worse.
It is easy to demonize the 'deadbeat dad' in these reports. However, there are ample situations where the male parent has been hung out to financially dry for years and even decades. Their lives are effectively ruined.
While I do not condone the crimes, I can understand how someone could be driven to undertake such a desperate measure, believing it will give them some relief.
Consider this... Ex-wife gets decades of alimony, unless she remarries. Once she finds out the ex-husband has no ability to pay for the next few years while incarcerated, she may move on and get re-married. Thus upon release the ex-husband finds some financial relief.
(Yes, decades. My BIL got stuck with child support and alimony for 21 years. Youngest was 1 year old, and he paid until he was done with college at 22. Lived in a hovel, while ex-wife trolled the town. She never re-married just to keep the money pipeline open.)
Things become a little clearer when you find out that, depending on the state, the state itself gets about 40% of the child support charge they levy against the father. So they are rather perversely incentivised into sticking as many of these charges on people as possible, and for as high an amount as they can get away with. Child support also isn't necessarily based on current earnings, but projected earnings. So sure, you're a supermarket shelf stacker right now, but you could be store manager in 2 years. We'll base your child support payments on that.
I'm all for parents (both father and mother) supporting their children, but the US system as-is is not fit for purpose.
Agreed. Mate of mine was the victim in a domestic violence relationship. She owned an accounting business. During the messy split they sold the family home. She took the lot. And took all his superannuation. And he pays crippling child support payments every month even with 50% custody of the kids, as she has used accounting tricks to write down her income to basically zero, whilst driving $100k+ euro cars. Played the cancer card, even when she didn't have cancer. Basically had to start again in his late 30s despite doing nothing wrong.
" If he simply used someone else's credentials?"
I would argue yes in the sense that hacking often equates to trying to obtain "root" level access in order to gain complete control.
Ok he didn't have or get root level but he did manage to access the system, albeit illegally.
Is there truly a difference between using a buffer overrun or using stolen credentials, when the goal is to gain entry..
> Is there truly a difference between using a buffer overrun or using stolen credentials, when the goal is to gain entry..
Interesting point. Initially I would say there was a difference, as the man initially accessed the system with the intent to alter the records about him it contained. However, he then went on to use that access to sell data and so became just another black market hacker.
I suspect if he had stopped with his own death he might have got away with things for longer, although for how long without a new state registered identity (and thus access to legitimate employment, welfare, pensions etc. ) is another matter.
That's the problem when you don't think your plan through completely. He thought faking his death would be a great idea, until he discovered how hard it is going to be to live while being "dead".
I'm willing to bet that he never considered the repercussions of his "death" until after the fact, and resorted to all of the criminal behaviors to get by without an identity.
"Is there truly a difference between using a buffer overrun or using stolen credentials, when the goal is to gain entry.."
Yes. Because a buffer overflow we can patch. (It equates with a hole in the fence.)
Misauthentication is a harder problem. (It's equates with the guards waving you through the front door because you are the evil twin of Doctor Mike.) That said, I bet 2FA wasn't in play; whether it would have been acceptable is another matter.
Depends on your definition. Did he try to hack the system for his benefit making it say or do something it was not supposed to do? He clearly wasn't dead so he hacked the system to show he was dead. The system was not designed to make alive people dead unless actually dead.
It *is* hacking. The social engineering side of hacking is where the real action is. Stealing credentials counts.
That said, and while OBVIOUSLY his sentence is appropriate, this is another example of how the "computer crime" laws are misused. This was primarily a case of fraud, the fact that it is computer crime is almost incidental. But the precedents are set, so you can expect your sentences to be inflated any time computers are involved. It's similar to the way crossing state lines makes it a felony even if you live on the border and just incidentally happened to cross state lines in the process...
...the evidence against him may also have included ownership of one of those weird keyboards that include a "FAKE" key.
Though he'd have the plausible defence that the whole thing was an understandable error on his part because some idiot designer put the "FAKE" key where Return would normally be expected. So instead of the new line he wanted, his muscle memory led to him hitting the wrong key and inadvertently faking his own death.
I mean, we've all been there, haven't we?
"Interesting. How are they different from the dictionary meaning?"
Any negative reference in any sense whatsoever about a non-White person or a minority = "Racism".
Any time a computer is used for, or involved in, non-sanctioned activities = "Hacking".
Any protest you don't like, driven by an opinion you don't agree with = "Riots".
Any non-White person arriving illegally into your country = "Refugee" (or "Asylum seeker") - even if they came here from France.
Any person holding an opinion you deem insufficiently 'progressive' = "Fascist".
Any person or organisation who doesn't subscribe to massive extreme social liberalism = "Right-wing".
Any person who identifies as such, regardless of biological fact = "Man & woman".
If he had just been content with marking himself as deceased then likely nobody would ever notice. It might have been a bit of a problem when he got older as he wouldn't have been able to enroll in Medicare or claim Social Security but that's life for you.
Childcare is a bit of an issue, though. Its not that a person 'shirks their responsibilities' but the situation with divorce in the US has been for many years now one where essentially the father is kicked out of the home but required to spend a significant amount of his income paying for it. Since this leaves the guy somewhat impoverished there's a lot of incentive to try to skip out on the payments. This has led to a cycle of increasing enforcement which in turn further disincentivize cooperation.
(Here I should state that I've never been divorced -- been married for ~50 years, have family etc. so I've not personally been involved although I've witnessed this happening to several colleagues.)
How does he plan to earn a living once his SSN is canceled? Find a job where they're willing to illegally pay him in cash? Because states share the information of who has died to the federal government, to insure children can't keep collecting their deceased parents social security payments and so forth. I imagine he would have problems maintaining a bank account and driver's license as well, and forget about being able to own a home. Even renting might be tough, as many landlords will want your SSN to do a bankground check and if you come up "dead" they're not going to rent to you. Probably assume you're lying about your identity and using a dead person's SSN, might even report it to the police.
Seems like it would be easier to just move overseas, since AFAIK there is no way to enforce child support payments against someone living in another country. You couldn't return to the US because those accumulated payments are probably always going to be waiting for you, but if you're willing to have yourself declared DEAD this seems like a much easier path!
He was charged with aggravated identity theft. Perhaps, in addition to impersonating the medical staff, he also attempted to acquire another identity? I haven't read the DOJ article linked to in TFA, just guessing. It's equally likely that he just didn't think it through. => icon