mokin:

Fake Antivirus Ringleader Must Pay $163 Million

Federal court imposes $163 million judgment on a woman who FTC says helped run scareware ring that tricked more than one million consumers across six countries into purchasing fake security software.
By Mathew J. Schwartz InformationWeek
October 03, 2012 12:15 PM

Acting on a Federal Trade Commission complaint, a federal court has imposed a $163 million judgment on a woman who allegedly helped run a scareware ring that tricked over one million consumers across six countries into purchasing fake security software.
That decision, announced by the FTC Tuesday, came after a two-day bench trial last month. U.S. District Judge Richard D. Bennett, who presided over the case, also wrote in his related judgment that the defendant, Kristy Ross, "shall be permanently restrained and enjoined from the marketing and sale of computer security software and software that interferes with consumers' computer use as well as from engaging in any form of deceptive marketing."

According to the FTC, Kristy Ross, together with defendants Sam Jain, Daniel Sundin, Marc D'Souza, and James Reno, served as officers and directors of two businesses: Belize-based Innovative Marketing, Inc. (IMI), and a subsidiary, Cincinnati-based ByteHosting Internet Services. The businesses were used "to conduct a massive 'scareware' scheme that marketed a variety of computer security software via deceptive advertising."
According to the FTC, the operation "used elaborate and technologically sophisticated Internet advertisements placed with advertising networks and many popular commercial websites," which purported to display the results of a "'system scan' that invariably detected a host of malicious or otherwise dangerous files and programs on consumers' computers." The scanner then urged consumers to buy software, priced between $40 and $60, to remediate the issue.

Of all of the people charged by the FTC in this case, Ross was the only remaining defendant. Four of the others already settled with the agency, including Marc D'Souza and his father, Maurice D'Souza, who in 2011 agreed to a settlement requiring that they return $8.2 million in what the FTC dubbed as "ill-gotten gains." The other three defendants in the case, meanwhile, had judgments entered against them by default because they failed to appear in court and participate in the litigation.