Date: 04-16-2016

Case Style: United States of America v. Anastasio N. Laoutaris

Case Number: 3:13-cr-00386-B

Judge: Jane J. Boyle

Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas County)

Plaintiff's Attorney: Paul Yanowitch and Nick Bunch

Defendant's Attorney: John Teakell

Description: Dallas, TX - Former Law Firm IT Engineer Convicted in Computer Intrusion Case is Sentenced to 115 Months in Federal Prison - Defendant Also Ordered to Pay Nearly $1.7 Million in Restitution

A former Information Technology (IT) engineer for a Dallas-headquartered law firm, who was convicted at trial in September 2015 on felony offenses stemming from his unauthorized access to the firm’s computer network, has been sentenced, announced U.S. Attorney John Parker of the Northern District of Texas.

Anastasio N. Laoutaris, 41, of Spring, Texas, was sentenced yesterday afternoon by U.S. District Judge Jane J. Boyle to 115 months in federal prison and ordered to pay $1,697,000 in restitution. The jury convicted Laoutaris on two counts of knowingly accessing a computer network without authorization and intentionally issuing commands and codes that caused damage to the network. Laoutaris was remanded into federal custody following that verdict.

Laoutaris, who was an IT engineer for Locke Lord LLP from 2006 to August 2011, accessed the firm’s computer network without authorization on December 1, 2011, and December 5, 2011, and on both occasions, issued instructions and commands that caused significant damage to the network, including deleting or disabling hundreds of user accounts, desktop and laptop accounts, and user e-mail accounts

The law firm, Locke Lord LLP, has offices throughout the U.S. and the world; its headquarters is located in Dallas. The U.S. Attorney’s Office wishes to thank them for their support and cooperation throughout the investigation and prosecution.

The U.S. Secret Service investigated the case.

Outcome: Defendant was sentenced to 115 months in prison and ordered to pay $1.7 million in restitution.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: The corrections / additions regarding this case would simply be: The jury convicted Laoutaris in spite of expert testimony by a computer expert, who is also a computer intrusion/hacking expert, who testified that in these cases usually the perpetrator cannot be identified. This expert also testified that especially in these circumstances, there is no evidence that Laoutaris was the perpetrator, and also that the intrusions had the markings that are consistent with an intrusion/hack that originated in China. Thank you, John Teakell