6

The Wikipedia article on Jeremy Hammond echoes a Wired article:

According to Kevin Poulsen, the credit card numbers were used by Anonymous to make $700,000 worth of fraudulent donations to non-profit groups.

Did Jeremy Hammond use 60,000 credit cards to exclusively give to charity? (i.e. no personal, financial gain)

  • impossible to answer without access to information that's not publicly available (i.e. the transaction records). And even then there's always the possibility that some of the transactions were performed by others. – jwenting Feb 13 '14 at 12:45
3

Here are some links you might find useful:

Hackthissite.org, Jeremy's hacking site - Blog post by the site admins about his detainment.

Interview with Jeremy - About halfway down the interview they start to discuss his intentions of the Stratfor incident.

You might notice it says,

Margaret Ratner Kunstler, Hammond's attorney, clarified that her client did not himself make any donations or use the credit cards. He also did not personally profit from the hacked credit cards.

| improve this answer | |
  • 2
    hardly an unbiassed, reliable, source of information. The only such source would be the credit card transaction records, and those are no doubt sealed. – jwenting Feb 13 '14 at 12:44
  • 1
    Everything on the Internet is biased! I agree, its impossible to really know, but here is something that might lead to another. – Alex L Feb 13 '14 at 15:31
0

If only it were so. But no, there are plenty of sources out there that indicate there were other charges made too, such as on Steam.

And I wouldn't trust a thing Kunstler says on it either. It's her job to try and distort the truth about her client to put him in the best light possible. In an Al Jazeera America interview (where I was another participant having known Hammond 06-10 and targeted by him after an attack on the Political party I work for when it wouldn't become his anarchist haven) , she claimed he wasn't even part of the group until well after the credit card numbers had been stolen and used. The problem is, no good attorney EVER advises their client to plead guilty to something they didn't do, and by all accounts his legal team was top-notch. So either the FBI had plenty of proof, or were plea-bargaining for something bigger.

Problem is, taking credit card numbers and making charges on them is one of his 'things' (along with violence; either directly as with holocaust deniers and Daly Plaza, or indirectly via SWATing), it's what he was convicted of in 06 with Protest Warrior, except he was caught there before he could use it.

And even if they did just donate to charity, that's in some ways worse. fraudulent charges hurt charities, and cost them money. So he "stole" from them too.

| improve this answer | |
  • "no good attorney EVER advises their client to plead guilty to something they didn't do" That doesn't sound true. Attorneys advise all the time to plead guilty is there is a big chance of conviction carrying significantly higher sentence than the plea sentence. If the choice is between 2 yr plea and 50% chance of 30 year conviction, attorney may very well suggest to plea to 2 yrs (which may be further cut for good behavior, etc.) than risk costly trial with disastrous outcome. This has nothing to do with guilt. – StasM Feb 15 '14 at 23:54

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .