1 / 18

Robert Morgester

Robert Morgester. Deputy Attorney General of California. California’s Initiative On High Tech Crime. Combining local and state resources to efficiently combat high tech crime. High Technology Crime Defined :.

amber
Download Presentation

Robert Morgester

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Robert Morgester Deputy Attorney General of California

  2. California’s InitiativeOn High Tech Crime Combining local and state resources to efficiently combat high tech crime

  3. High Technology Crime Defined: “High technology crime is those crimes in which technology is used as an instrument in committing, or assisting in the commission of , a crime, or which is the target of a criminal act.” (Pen. Code, § 13848(a).)

  4. New Wine, Old Bottles • Many high tech crimes are multi-jurisdictional -“Somebody else’s problem” • Complexity of high tech crime presents unique training, technical, investigative, and prosecutorial challenges • Traditional funding sources never contemplated this new type of crime

  5. Impact of High Technology CrimeIn California • Annual losses • Revenue lost: $6.564 billion • Jobs lost: 19,141 • Wages lost: $923 million • Tax revenue lost: $358 million • Office of Criminal Justice Planning, High Technology Crime In California, 1999

  6. Today’s Solution: High Tech Crime Task Forces • Program established by the legislature in 1997 • Solution crafted and supported by industry and law enforcement • 1999 funding: 1.2 million dollars • 2000 funding: 3 million dollars • 2001 funding: +4 million dollars • 2002 funding: +14 million dollars • Requirements (pen. Code § 13848-13848.6) • Two or more counties • Local and state law enforcement and prosecutors • Federal law enforcement participation • Targeting high technology crime

  7. Today’s Solution: High Tech Crime Task Forces • Benefits • Pooling of limited resources • Larger jurisdictional coverage • Offers trained officers with legal and technical support to a defined geographic area • Governments and private industry more willing to provide funds to an organized approach

  8. 1999Sacramento ValleySilicon ValleyLos Angeles BasinTask Forces cover only 8 of California’s 58 Counties

  9. 1999 Jurisdictional Coverageof Task Force Investigations • 47 counties • 16 states • Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, and Washington • 3 foreign countries • Canada, Costa Rica, and Germany

  10. Impact of Task Force Investigations • Cases included hardware theft, software piracy, stalking, identity theft, hacking, phreaking, homicides, and terrorist threats. • Victim loss investigated exceeds 126 million dollars • Excess of 14 million dollars in stolen property has been recovered • One investigation had over 200,000 possible victims

  11. 2000-2001Sacramento ValleySatellite Lab StanislausSilicon ValleyLos Angeles BasinNorth BaySan Diego

  12. Program ResultsMarch 1999 To June 2001 • 3,441 Cases investigated • 876 cases filed • 410,397 victims in cases filed • 596 convictions • $332,646,760 monetary loss • $7,282,777 grant funds expended

  13. Tomorrow's Challenges • Training • Investigation • Prosecution • Computer Forensic • Funding

  14. Robert M. MorgesterDeputy Attorney General

More Related