Los Angeles Computer Crimes Attorney

Computer-related prosecutions have exploded in California over the last decade, driven by the growth of e-commerce, cloud computing, social media, and cryptocurrency. State and federal task forces, including the Los Angeles Police Department’s Cyber Crimes Section, the FBI Cyber Division, the Secret Service Electronic Crimes Task Force, and the regional Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force, now devote unprecedented resources to identifying suspects, seizing digital devices and pushing for aggressive sentences.

If you have received a target letter, search warrant notice, grand-jury subpoena, or simply fear that you are under investigation, every keystroke matters. The experienced criminal defense team at Kraut Law Group Criminal & DUI Lawyers, Inc., led by former Deputy District Attorney Michael Kraut, uses decades of prosecutorial insight to defend your rights, protect privileged data, and position you for the best possible outcome.

Under California Penal Code § 502 (also known as the Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act) a “computer,” “computer system,” or “computer network” includes virtually any device that stores or transmits digital information—desktops, laptops, tablets, smart phones, point-of-sale terminals, servers, routers and even many IoT devices. Because the statute is technology-neutral and broadly worded, prosecutors use it to charge conduct that ranges from sophisticated network intrusions to guessing a coworker’s email password.

Computer-crime allegations often overlap with other California or federal offenses, such as:

• Penal Code § 502(c). Unauthorized access, data theft, service interruption, introduction of malware, or assisting another to do so (commonly called “hacking”)
  • Potential Exposure:
    • Misdemeanor: Up to 1 year in jail and/or $5,000 fine
    • Felony: 16 months, 2 years, or 3 years in state prison and/or $10,000 fine
• Penal Code § 530.5. Identity theft, including phishing, credential-stuffing, or synthetic identities
  • Potential Exposure:
    • Misdemeanor or felony (“wobbler”)
    • Maximum of 3 years in prison plus restitution
• Penal Code § 484e–j. Credit-card and debit-card fraud (possession, forging, altering, skimming, or using without consent)
  • Potential Exposure:
    • Wobbler; up to 3 years in prison
• Penal Code § 459 (Burglary). “Burglary of an electronic device” if entry into a building is coupled with intent to commit a computer offense
  • Potential Exposure:
    • 16 months, 2 years, or 3 years
    • 2, 4, or 6 years if first-degree
• 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA). Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act—unauthorized access, protected computer damage, trafficking in passwords
  • Potential Exposure:
    • Up to 10 years per count
    • Up to 20 years if prior conviction

• Cyber-Tips & Private Complaints
  • Financial-institution SARs (Suspicious Activity Reports)
  • Data-breach notifications under Civ. Code § 1798.29
  • Content-provider referrals (e.g., Google, Meta, Apple)
• Law-Enforcement Forensics
  • Network-intrusion logs, cell-site location data, and MAC addresses
  • Full-disk or cloud-account images captured with EnCase®, Cellebrite®, or Magnet AXIOM®
  • Chain-of-custody documentation is critical for exclusion motions
• Grand-Jury Subpoenas & Search Warrants
  • Pen-Register / Trap-And-Trace Orders
  • Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. § 2703) Subpoenas For Email Content
  • Sneak-And-Peek Warrants Under 18 U.S.C. § 3103A For Covert Data Copying
• Charging Decision
  • Los Angeles County District Attorney’s High-Tech Crime Division typically files cases where the loss < $250k and primarily local victims.
  • The U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California assumes jurisdiction for interstate schemes, government-system intrusions, or losses above $250k.

• Graduated Loss Tables. Under California’s aggravated white-collar-crime statute (Pen. C. § 186.11) and the federal Sentencing Guidelines § 2B1.1, longer prison terms apply as total losses rise. A $120k loss can add two years to a state sentence; a $1 million loss can double a federal guideline range.
• Possession of Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM). Even a single image can trigger Penal Code § 311.11 or 18 U.S.C. § 2252A, mandatory Sex-Offender Registration (Pen. C. § 290), and immigration removal proceedings.
• Immigration & Licensing. Fraud or moral-turpitude convictions may result in visa revocation, denial of naturalization, or professional-license discipline by the State Bar, Medical Board, or Department of Insurance.
• Asset Freezes & Forfeiture. Federal prosecutors can seize cryptocurrency wallets, brokerage accounts, and real-property equity pre-trial under 18 U.S.C. § 981, often impeding a defendant’s ability to finance a defense unless promptly challenged.

• Lack of Intent. Many offenses require proof that the accused knowingly accessed data “without permission” or with intent to defraud. Automated processes, default credentials, or good-faith security research can negate intent.
• Consent or Authorized Access. A valid Terms-of-Service authorization, employer policy, or “user on the account” status may create a complete defense.
• Flawed Warrants & Over-Seizure. The Fourth Amendment requires particularity; wholesale imaging of unrelated devices or indefinite storage of privileged data is subject to suppression.
• Attribution Errors. IP address or MAC address evidence alone rarely meets the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard. Spoofing, VPNs, TOR routing, and shared Wi-Fi can misidentify the true actor.
• Insufficient Loss Proof. Prosecutors often aggregate “intended” losses without proof of actual deprivation. Challenging the methodology can dramatically reduce exposure.
• Entrapment & Government Overreach. Sting operations must provide an existing disposition; aggressive undercover inducement can invalidate charges.

• Pre-Filing Conferences: Mr. Kraut’s former-prosecutor background allows direct dialogue with case agents and filing deputies, often leading to rejected or reduced charges.
• Digital Forensic Review: We engage certified examiners to mirror the government image, extract exculpatory artifacts, and prepare Daubert-ready reports.
• Civil Settlements & Restitution: In some fraud cases, timely victim repayment under the Pen. C. § 1377 can secure misdemeanor diversion or even complete dismissal.
• Parallel-Proceeding Coordination: Simultaneously filed civil lawsuits, administrative subpoenas (IRS, FTC, SEC), or immigration detainers require integrated defense planning to avoid inconsistent statements.

• Prosecutorial Insight: Michael Kraut spent over 14 years in the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, including the elite Major Fraud Division. He knows how charging memos are drafted, how loss amounts are calculated, and which defense arguments resonate with judges and juries.
• Technological Fluency: Our firm partners with former federal cyber-agents, Certified Information Systems Security Professionals (CISSPs), and blockchain forensics experts who can challenge the government’s narrative byte-by-byte.
• Local Court Mastery: From the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center downtown, to the United States District Court on First Street, to branch courthouses in Van Nuys, Pasadena, and Long Beach, we navigate venue-specific scheduling quirks, diversion programs, and settlement conferences daily.
• Example Scenarios: Potential outcomes may include:
  • No-File for a software engineer accused of scraping proprietary data from a former employer, where investigators can be convicted that the logins were authorized.
  • Felony-to-Misdemeanor Reduction for a college student charged with credential-stuffing retail accounts, where restitution is paid in advance.
  • Federal Probation (no custody) in $680k Bitcoin SIM-swap case—where it can be shown that there was minimal personal gain and the suspect cooperates with the recovery of victim funds.

Q: “Will I go to jail?”
Punishment depends on the charged statute, loss figure, criminal record, and how early an effective defense is mounted. First-time non-violent offenders with modest losses can often avoid custody through diversion, probation, or the newly expanded “Military Diversion” and “Judicial Diversion” programs.

Q: “Can the police look through my phone without a warrant?”
Generally no. Riley v. California (2014) requires a warrant to search digital devices seized incident to arrest. There are exceptions for exigent circumstances and border searches, but any over-broad examination is ripe for suppression.

Q: “What if I possessed leaked data but never used it?”
Mere possession of stolen personal-identifying information (PII) can still be charged under Pen. C. § 530.5(c)(1). The prosecution must prove you knew the data was unauthorized and intended to defraud. Absence of fraudulent intent is a key defense focus.

Q: “What is 'phishing' vs 'smishing' vs 'vishing'?”
Phishing is a deceptive email, smishing is a fraudulent SMS/text message, and vishing is voice-call social engineering. All can support identity theft or computer-access charges.

Time is your most valuable commodity when facing a computer crime investigation. Digital evidence preservation letters, selective cooperation, and motion practice are far more effective before charges are filed than after an arrest. Let Kraut Law Group Criminal & DUI Lawyers, Inc. put our experience, relationships, and technological skill on your side. Confidential consultations are available in person, by secure video, or off-site for high-profile matters. Free 24/7 Consultation. Contact us today at 888-334-6344 or 323-464-6453 or using our secure online form.