`Case 1:11—cr—10260—NMG Document 53 Filed 09/12/12 Page 1 of 16
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
`
`Crim. No. 11-CR-10260-NMG
`
`VIOLATIONS:
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud)
`
`UNITED STATES or AMERICA
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(4),(b) (Computer Fraud)
`
`v.
`
`AARON SWARTZ,
`
`Defendant
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2), (b), (c)(2)(B)(iii)
`(Unlawfully Obtaining Information from a
`Protected Computer)
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(B), (c)(4)(A)(i)(I),(VI)
`(Recklessly Damaging a Protected Computer)
`
`18 U.S.C. § 2 (Aiding and Abetting)
`
`18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c),
`18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2)(B), and 18 U.S.C. §
`1030(i) (Criminal Forfeiture)
`
`SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT
`
`The Grand Jury charges that at all relevant times:
`
`PARTIES
`
`JSTOR
`
`1.
`
`J STOR, founded in 1995, was and continued to be a United States-based, not-for-
`
`profit organization that provides an online system for archiving and providing access to academic
`
`journals and journal articles. It provides searchable digitized copies of articles from over 1,000
`
`academic journals, dating back for lengthy periods of time.
`
`2.
`
`JSTOR’s service is important to research institutions and universities because it
`
`can be extraordinarily expensive, in terms of both cost and space, for a research or university
`
`library to maintain a comprehensive collection of academic journals. By digitizing extensive,
`
`historical collections ofjournals, JSTOR enables libraries to outsource the journals’ storage,
`
`ensures their preservation, and enables authorized users to conduct full-text, cross-disciplinary
`
`
`
`Case 1:11-cr-10260-NMG Document 53 Filed 09/12/12 Page 2 of 16
`Case 1:11—cr—10260—NMG Document 53 Filed 09/12/12 Page 2 of 16
`
`searches of them. JSTOR has invested millions of dollars in obtaining and digitizing the journal
`
`articles that it makes available as part of its service.
`
`3.
`
`JSTOR generally charges libraries, universities, and publishers a subscription fee
`
`for access to JSTOR’s digitized joumals. For a large research university, this armual subscription
`
`fee for JSTOR’S various collections of content can cost more than $50,000. Portions of the
`
`subscription fees are shared with the journal publishers who hold the original copyrights. In
`
`addition, JSTOR makes some articles available for individual purchase.
`
`4.
`
`JSTOR authorizes users to download a limited number ofj oumal articles at a
`
`time. Before being given access to JSTOR’s digital archive, each user must agree and
`
`acknowledge that they carmot download or export content from JSTOR’S computer servers with
`
`automated computer programs such as web robots, spiders, and scrapers. JSTOR also uses
`
`computerized measures to prevent users from downloading an unauthorized number of articles
`
`using automated techniques.
`
`MIT
`
`5.
`
`The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“MIT”) was and continued to be a
`
`leading research and teaching university located in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`JSTOR provided MIT with its services and content for a fee.
`
`MIT made JSTOR’s services and content available to its students, faculty, and
`
`employees. MIT also allowed guests of the Institute to have the same access to JSTOR, but
`
`required guests to register on the MIT network. MIT authorized guests to use its network for no
`
`more than fourteen days per year, and required all users to use the network to support MIT’s
`
`research, education, and administrative activities, or at least to not interfere with these activities;
`
`to maintain the system’s security and conform to applicable laws, including copyright laws; and
`
`to conform with rules imposed by any networks to which users connected through MIT’s system.
`
`These rules explicitly notified users that violations could lead to state or federal prosecution.
`
`Guest users of the MIT network agreed to be bound by the same rules that applied to students,
`
`
`
`Case 1:11-cr-10260-NMG Document 53 Filed 09/12/12 Page 3 of 16
`Case 1:11—cr—10260—NMG Document 53 Filed 09/12/12 Page 3 of 16
`
`faculty, and employees.
`
`8.
`
`JSTOR’s computers were located outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
`
`and thus any communications between JSTOR’s computers and MIT’s computers crossed state
`
`boundaries. JSTOR’s and MIT’s computers were also used in and affected interstate and foreign
`
`commerce.
`
`Aaron Swartz
`
`9.
`
`Aaron Swartz lived in the District of Massachusetts and was a fellow at Harvard
`
`University's Safra Center for Ethics. Swartz was not afiiliated with MIT as a student, faculty
`
`member, or employee or in any other manner. Although Harvard provided Swartz access to
`
`JSTOR’s services and archive as needed for his research, Swartz used MIT’s computer networks
`
`to steal millions of articles from J STOR.
`
`OVER VIEW OF THE OFFENSES
`
`10.
`
`Between September 24, 2010, and January 6, 2011, Swartz contrived to:
`
`break into a restricted-access computer wiring closet at MIT;
`
`access MIT’s network without authorization from a switch within that
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`closet;
`
`c.
`
`access JSTOR’s archive of digitized journal articles through MIT’s
`
`computer network;
`
`d.
`
`use this access to download a substantial portion of JSTOR’s total archive
`
`onto his computers and computer hard drives;
`
`e.
`
`avoid MIT’s and JSTOR’s efforts to prevent this massive copying, efforts
`
`that were directed at users generally and at Swartz’s illicit conduct specifically;
`
`and
`
`f.
`
`elude detection and identification.
`
`
`
`Case 1:11-cr-10260-NMG Document 53 Filed 09/12/12 Page 4 of 16
`Case 1:11—cr—10260—NMG Document 53 Filed 09/12/12 Page 4 of 16
`
`MEANS OF COMMITTING THE OFFENSES
`
`1 1.
`
`Swartz alone, or in knowing concert with others unknown to the Grand Jury,
`
`(hereafier simply “Swartz” in this section) committed these offenses through the means described
`
`below.
`
`September 24 through 27, 2010
`
`12.
`
`On September 24, 2010, Swartz purchased an Acer laptop computer from a local
`
`computer store.
`
`13.
`
`Later that day, Swartz connected the Acer laptop to MIT’s computer network from
`
`a location in Building 16 at MIT and registered with MIT’s computer network as a guest.
`
`14. When Swartz registered on the network, he took measures to hide his identity as
`
`the computer’s owner and user:
`
`a.
`
`Swartz registered the computer under the fictitious guest name “Gary
`
`Host.”
`
`b.
`
`Swartz specified the computer’s client name as “ghost laptop.” (A
`
`computer’s client name helps to identify it on a network and can be chosen by its
`
`user.) In this case, the “ghost” client name abridged the pseudonym “Gary Host”
`
`by combining the first initial “g” with the last name “host.”
`
`c.
`
`Swartz identified the fictitious “Gary Host’s” e-mail address as
`
`“ghost@mailinator.com”, a temporary e-mail address. Mailinator advertised itself
`
`as a free e-mail service that allows a user to create a new temporary-mail address
`
`as needed. Mailinator advertised that it would accept mail for any e-mail address
`
`directed to the mailinator.com domain without need for a prior registration or
`
`account. Mailinator also advertised that all mail sent to mailinator.com would
`
`automatically be deleted after several hours, whether read or not, and that the
`
`company kept no logs of e-mail access.
`
`15.
`
`On September 25, 2010, Swartz used the Acer laptop to systematically access and
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:11-cr-10260-NMG Document 53 Filed 09/12/12 Page 5 of 16
`Case 1:11—cr—10260—NMG Document 53 Filed 09/12/12 Page 5 of 16
`
`rapidly download an extraordinary volume of articles from JSTOR by submitting download
`
`requests faster than a human could type, and in a manner designed to sidestep or confuse
`
`JSTOR’s computerized efforts to restrict the volume of individual users’ downloads.
`
`16.
`
`The effect of these rapid and massive downloads and download requests was to
`
`impair computers used by JSTOR to provide articles to client research institutions.
`
`17.
`
`As JSTOR, and then MIT, became aware of these events, each took steps to block
`
`communications to and from Swartz’s computer. Swartz, in turn, altered the apparent source of
`
`his automated demands to sidestep or circumvent JSTOR’s and MIT’s blocks against his
`
`computer, as described below:
`
`a.
`
`On the evening of September 25, 2010, JSTOR terminated Swartz’s
`
`computer’s network access by refusing communications from the computer’s
`
`assigned IP address.
`
`i.
`
`An IP (short for “Internet Protocol”) address is a unique numeric
`
`address assigned to each computer connected to the Internet so that the
`
`computer’s incoming and outgoing Internet traffic is directed to the proper
`
`destination. Most Internet service providers control a range of IP
`
`addresses. MIT controls all IP addresses that begin with the number 18.
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`Swartz’s computer had been assigned an IP address of 18.55.6215.
`
`On September 25, 2010, JSTOR blocked communications from
`
`that IP address, thus preventing Swartz from requesting and receiving any
`
`more JSTOR articles.
`
`b.
`
`On September 26, 2010, Swartz established a new IP address for his
`
`computer on the MIT network — l8.55.6.2l6 — which sidestepped the IP address
`
`block and allowed the laptop to resume downloading an extraordinary volume of
`
`articles from JSTOR. Accesses from this address continued until the middle of
`
`the day, when JSTOR spotted the access and blocked communications from this
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:11-cr-10260-NMG Document 53 Filed 09/12/12 Page 6 of 16
`Case 1:11—cr—10260—NMG Document 53 Filed 09/12/12 Page 6 of 16
`
`new IP address as well.
`
`c.
`
`Because the downloads on September 25 and 26 originated from shifting
`
`MIT IP addresses beginning with 18.55.6, and because JSTOR’s computers used
`
`to provide articles to research institutions had been impaired and significant
`
`portions of its archive was at risk of misappropriation, on September 26, 2010,
`
`JSTOR began blocking a broader range of IP addresses. The block prevented a
`
`researcher assigned any one of over 250 other IP addresses available at MIT from
`
`being able to access JSTOR’s archive until September 29, 2010.
`
`d.
`
`After JSTOR notified MIT what was happening, MIT sought to block
`
`Swartz in particular. It did so by prohibiting Swartz’s laptop from being assigned
`
`any IP address on MIT’s network. MIT did so by blocking communications with
`
`any computer bearing the laptop’s MAC address.
`
`i.
`
`A MAC address is a unique identifier assigned to each computer’s
`
`network interface, in this case, Swartz’s Acer laptop’s network interface
`
`card.
`
`ii.
`
`When a user plugs his computer into MIT’s wired network on
`
`campus, the network reads the computer’s MAC address to determine
`
`whether the computer is authorized to use the network. As part of the
`
`registration process, “Gary Host’s” computer, i.e., Swartz’s Acer laptop,
`
`had identified its network interface’s MAC address as 00:23:5a:73:5f:fb.
`
`I iii.
`
`Consequently, on September 27, 2010, MIT terminated the
`
`laptop’s guest registration and barred any network interface with that
`
`MAC address from obtaining a new IP address.
`
`October 2 through 9, 2010
`
`18.
`
`On October 2, 2010, just over a week after JSTOR and MIT had blocked Swartz’s
`
`Acer laptop from communicating with JSTOR’s and MIT’s networks, Swartz sought and
`
`
`
`Case 1:11-cr-10260-NMG Document 53 Filed 09/12/12 Page 7 of 16
`Case 1:11—cr—10260—NMG Document 53 Filed 09/12/12 Page 7 of 16
`
`obtained another guest connection on MIT’s network for his Acer laptop.
`
`19.
`
`Once again, Swartz registered the Acer laptop on the network using identifiers
`
`chosen to avoid identifying Swartz as the computer’s owner and user:
`
`a.
`
`Swartz once again registered the computer under the fictitious name "Gary
`
`Host" and the client name "ghost laptop."
`
`b.
`
`To evade the MAC address block, Swartz “spoofed” the Acer laptop’s
`
`computer’s MAC address. A MAC address is usually assigned to a network
`
`interface card by the cards manufacturer, and therefore generally remains
`
`constant. But a user with the right knowledge can change the MAC address, an
`
`action referred to as “MAC address spoofing.” Swartz spoofed the Acer laptop’s
`
`MAC address by changing it from 00:23:5a:73:5f:fb to O0:23:5a:73:5f:fc (that is,
`
`the final ‘b’ became a ‘c’).
`
`c.
`
`By re-registering the laptop, the laptop received a new IP address, which
`
`disassociated Swartz’s Acer laptop from the IP addresses that JSTOR had blocked
`
`when Swartz had used them in September.
`
`20.
`
`On October 8, 2010, Swartz connected a second computer to MIT’s network and
`
`registered as a guest, using similar naming conventions: Swartz registered the computer under
`
`the name "Grace Host," the computer client name "ghost macbook," and the temporary e-mail
`
`address “ghost42@mailinator.com.”
`
`21.
`
`On October 9, 2010, Swartz used both the “ghost laptop” and the “ghost
`
`macbook” to, again, systematically and rapidly access and download articles from JSTOR. The
`
`pace of Swartz’s automated downloads was so fast and voluminous that it significantly impaired
`
`the operation of some computers at JSTOR.
`
`22.
`
`In response, beginning on or about October 9, 2010, JSTOR blocked MIT’s entire
`
`computer network from accessing JSTOR. The block lasted several days, again depriving
`
`legitimate users at MIT from accessing JSTOR’s services.
`
`
`
`Case 1:11-cr-10260-NMG Document 53 Filed 09/12/12 Page 8 of 16
`Case 1:11—cr—10260—NMG Document 53 Filed 09/12/12 Page 8 of 16
`
`November and December, 2010
`
`23.
`
`During November and December, 2010, Swartz again used the “ghost laptop”
`
`(i.e., the Acer laptop) at MIT to download over two million documents from JSTOR, more than
`
`one hundred times the number of downloads during the same period by all legitimate MIT
`
`JSTOR users combined.
`
`24.
`
`During this period, when Swartz connected to MIT’s computer network, he
`
`circumvented MIT’s guest registration process altogether. Rather than let MIT assign his
`
`computer an IP address automatically, Swartz instead simply hard-wired into the network and
`
`assigned himself two IP addresses. He did so by entering a restricted network interface closet in
`
`the basement of MIT’s Building 16, plugging the computer directly into the network, and
`
`operating the computer to assign itself two IP addresses. To further cloak his activities, Swartz
`
`also hid the Acer laptop and a succession of external storage drives under a box in the closet, so
`
`that they would not arouse the suspicions of anyone who might enter the closet.
`
`January 4 through 6, 2011
`
`25.
`
`On January 4, 2011, Swartz entered the restricted basement network wiring closet
`
`and replaced an external hard drive attached to the laptop.
`
`26.
`
`On January 6, 2011, Swartz returned to the wiring closet to remove his computer
`
`equipment. This time he attempted to evade identification at the entrance to the restricted area.
`
`Apparently aware of or suspicious of a video camera, as Swartz entered the wiring closet, he held
`
`his bicycle helmet like a mask to shield his face, looking through ventilation holes in the helmet.
`
`Swartz then removed his computer equipment from the closet, put it in his backpack, and left,
`
`again masking his face with the bicycle helmet before peering through a crack in the double
`
`doors and cautiously stepping out.
`
`27.
`
`Later that day, Swartz connected his Acer laptop to MIT’s network in a different
`
`building — the student center — again registering on the network using identifiers chosen to
`
`avoid identifying Swartz as the computer’s owner and user:
`
`
`
`Case 1:11-cr-10260-NMG Document 53 Filed 09/12/12 Page 9 of 16
`Case 1:11—cr—10260—NMG Document 53 Filed 09/12/12 Page 9 of 16
`
`a.
`
`Swartz registered the computer under the fictitious name "Grace Host" and
`
`the client name "ghost laptop."
`
`b.
`
`By re-registering the laptop, the laptop again received a new IP address,
`
`which disassociated Swartz’s Acer laptop from the IP addresses Swartz had used
`
`up to that point.
`
`c.
`
`To again evade the MAC address block, Swartz had spoofed the Acer
`
`laptop’s MAC address a second time, changing it from the blocked
`
`00:23:5a:73:5f:fi) (or from the later-spoofed 00:23:5a:73:5f:fc) to
`
`00:4c:e5:a0:c7:56.
`
`28.
`
`Swa1'tz’s Acer laptop contained a software program named “keepgrabbing.py,”
`
`which was designed to download .p<if files (the format used by JSTOR) from JSTOR and
`
`sidestep or confuse JSTOR’s computerized efforts to prevent repeated and voluminous
`
`downloads.
`
`29. When MIT Police spotted Swartz on the afternoon of January 6, 2011 and
`
`attempted to question him, Swartz fled with a USB drive that contained the program
`
`“keepgrabbing2.py,” which was similar to “keepgrabbing.py.”
`
`30.
`
`In all, Swartz stole a major portion of the total archive in which JSTOR had
`
`invested.
`
`31.
`
`Swartz intended to distribute these articles through one or more file-sharing sites.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:11-cr-10260-NMG Document 53 Filed 09/12/12 Page 10 of 16
`Case 1:11—cr—10260—NMG Document 53 Filed 09/12/12 Page 10 of 16
`
`COUNTS 1 and 2
`Wire Fraud
`
`18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 & 2
`
`32.
`
`The Grand Jury realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in
`
`paragraphs 1-31 of this Indictment.
`
`33.
`
`Aaron Swartz devised a scheme to defraud JSTOR of a substantial number of
`
`journal articles which they had invested in collecting, obtaining the rights to distribute, and
`
`digitizing.
`
`34.
`
`He sought to defraud MIT and JSTOR of rights and property by:
`
`a.
`
`Deceptively making it appear to JSTOR that he was affiliated with MIT by
`
`downloading J STOR’s articles through MIT’s computer network and from MIT IP
`
`addresses, even though he was not affiliated at the time with MIT, and even
`
`though for legitimate research he could have accessed JSTOR through Harvard
`
`University, where he worked;
`
`b.
`
`Repeatedly taking steps to change his and his computer’s apparent
`
`identities and to conceal his and his computer’s true identities;
`
`c.
`
`Using a rapid, automated collection sofiware tool designed to make it
`
`appear as if he were multiple people making single requests rather than a single
`
`person making multiple requests, in order to bypass safeguards designed to limit
`
`the number of articles any one person could download;
`
`d.
`
`Attempting to conceal from MIT the physical location of the Acer laptop’s
`
`connection to MIT’s network, by placing it in a utility closet, covering it with
`
`cardboard, and, at one point, moving it from one MIT building to another; and
`
`e.
`
`Using wire communications between a MIT computer in Massachusetts
`
`and JSTOR’s computer out-of-state to effectuate his scheme.
`
`35.
`
`The Grand Jury charges that repeatedly from on or about September 24, 2010
`
`through January 6, 2011, or thereabout, in the District of Massachusetts and elsewhere, the
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 1:11-cr-10260-NMG Document 53 Filed 09/12/12 Page 11 of 16
`Case 1:11—cr—10260—NMG Document 53 Filed 09/12/12 Page 11 of 16
`
`defendant,
`
`AARON SWARTZ,
`
`having devised and intended to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud and for obtaining property
`
`— journal articles digitized and distributed by JSTOR, and copies of them — by means of
`
`material false and fraudulent pretenses and representations, transmitted and caused to be
`
`transmitted by means of wire communication in interstate commerce writings, signs, and signals
`
`— that is, communications to and from JSTOR’s computer servers —for the purpose of
`
`executing the scheme, and aiding and abetting it, including on or about the dates specified below:
`
`COUNT
`
`DATES
`
`_ October 9, 2010
`
`All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2.
`
`
`
`Case 1:11-cr-10260-NMG Document 53 Filed 09/12/12 Page 12 of 16
`
`COUNTS 3-7
`
`Computer Fraud
`18 U.S.C. §§ 1030(a)(4), (b) & 2
`
`36.
`
`The Grand Jury realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in
`
`paragraphs 1-31 and 33-34 of this Indictment and charges that:
`
`37.
`
`Repeatedly between on or about September 26, 2010 and January 6, 2011,
`
`including on or about the dates specified below, in the District of Massachusetts and elsewhere,
`
`the defendant,
`
`AARON SWARTZ,
`
`knowingly and with intent to defraud, accessed protected computers belonging to MIT and
`
`JSTOR without authorization, and by means of such conduct furthered the intended fraud and
`
`obtained things of value — namely, digitized journal articles from JSTOR’s archive — and aided
`
`and abetted the same and attempted to do the same:
`
`
`
`
`
`COUNT
`
`3 4 5 7
`
`All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1030(a)(4) and 2.
`
`
`
`Case 1:11-cr-10260-NMG Document 53 Filed 09/12/12 Page 13 of 16
`
`
`
`COUNT 8-12
`Unlawfully Obtaining Information from a Protected Computer
`18 U.S.C. §§ l030(a)(2), (b), (c)(2)(B)(iii) & 2
`
`38.
`
`The Grand Jury realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in
`
`paragraphs 1-31 and 33-34 of this Indictment and charges that:
`
`39.
`
`Repeatedly between September 26, 2010 and January 6, 2011, including on or
`
`about the dates specified below, in the District of Massachusetts and elsewhere, the defendant,
`
`AARON SWARTZ,
`
`intentionally accessed computers belonging to MIT and JSTOR without authorization, and
`
`thereby obtained from protected computers information whose value exceeded $5,000 -
`
`namely, digitized journal articles from J STOR’s archive — and aided and abetted the same and
`
`attempted to do the same.
`
`TT D
`
`JSTOR
`
`ecember 27,2010 — January 4, 2011
`Januaw 4-61°11
`
`All in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1030(a)(2), (c)(2)(B)(iii) and 2.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:11-cr-10260-NMG Document 53 Filed 09/12/12 Page 14 of 16
`Case 1:11—cr—10260—NMG Document 53 Filed 09/12/12 Page 14 of 16
`
`COUNT 13
`Recklessly Damaging a Protected Computer
`13 U-S-C §§ 1030(a)(5)(B).(°)(4)(A)(i)(1).(V1)& 2
`
`40.
`
`The Grand Jury realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in
`
`paragraphs 1-31 and 33-34 of this Indictment.
`
`41.
`
`Aaron Swartz’s repeated accessing of JSTOR’s and MIT’s computer systems
`
`without authorization constituted a related course of conduct lasting from on or about September
`
`26, 2010 through January 6, 2011. His unauthorized access of the systems on or about days such
`
`as September 26 and October 9, 2010 resulted in reckless damage to both. The pace and volume
`
`of his automated requests impaired computers JSTOR used to provide service to researchers and
`
`research institutions and caused JSTOR to cut off legitimate MIT researchers for days at a time.
`
`42.
`
`Both MIT and JSTOR were required to expend significant resources to respond to
`
`Swartz’s unlawful access to their systems and high speed automated downloads of substantial
`
`portions of JSTOR’s digital archives.
`
`43.
`
`The Grand Jury charges that on or about October 9, 2010 in the District of
`
`Massachusetts and elsewhere, the defendant,
`
`AARON SWARTZ,
`
`intentionally accessed a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such
`
`conduct recklessly caused damage to MIT and JSTOR, that is impairment to the availability of
`
`information, data, and a system, which, during a one year period:
`
`(A)
`
`caused loss, that is, reasonable costs of responding to the offense, conducting a
`
`damage assessment, and restoring the information, data, and system to its
`
`condition prior to the offense, aggregating at least $5,000 in value from a related
`
`course of conduct affecting at least one other protected computer, and
`
`(B)
`
`damage affecting at least 10 protected computers.
`
`All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section lO30(a)(5)(B),
`
`(C)(4)(A)(i)(1),(V1) & 2-
`
`1 4
`
`
`
`Case 1:11-cr-10260-NMG Document 53 Filed 09/12/12 Page 15 of 16
`Case 1:11—cr—10260—NMG Document 53 Filed 09/12/12 Page 15 of 16
`
`FORFEITURE ALLEGATIONS
`(18 U.S.C. § 98l(a)(l)(C), 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2)(B), and 18 U.S.C. §
`1030(i))
`
`44.
`
`Upon conviction of one or more of the offenses alleged in Counts One and Two of
`
`the Indictment, the defendant,
`
`AARON SWARTZ,
`
`shall forfeit to the United States, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(l)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c),
`
`any property, real or personal, that constitutes, or is derived from, proceeds traceable to the
`
`commission of the offense.
`
`45.
`
`Upon conviction of one or more of the offenses alleged in Counts Three through
`
`Thirteen of the Indictment, the defendant,
`
`AARON SWARTZ,
`
`shall forfeit to the United States, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2)(B) and 18 U.S.C. § 1030(i)
`
`any property constituting, or derived from, proceeds obtained directly or indirectly as a result of
`
`the commission of the offenses, and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1030(i) any personal property that
`
`was used or intended to be used to commit or facilitate the commission of such violations.
`
`46.
`
`If any of the property described in paragraphs 44 and 45 hereof as being
`
`forfeitable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(l)(C), 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2)(B),
`
`and 18 U.S.C. § 1030(i) as a result of any act or omission of the defendant --
`
`a. cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;
`
`b. has been transferred to, sold to, or deposited with a third party;
`
`c. has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of this Court;
`
`d. has been substantially diminished in value; or
`
`e. has been commingled with other property which carmot be divided without
`
`difficulty;
`
`it is the intention of the United States, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(p), as incorporated by 28
`
`U.S.C. §2461(c), 18 U.S.C. § 982(b)(1), and 18 U.S.C. § 1030(i)(2), to seek forfeiture of all
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:11-cr-10260-NMG Document 53 Filed 09/12/12 Page 16 of 16
`Case 1:11—cr—10260—NMG Document 53 Filed 09/12/12 Page 16 of 16
`
`other property of the defendant up to the value of the property described in paragraphs 44 and 45
`
`above.
`
`All pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 98 l(a)(l)(C), 982(a)(2)(B), and
`
`lO30(i), and Title 28, United States Code, Section 246l(c).
`
`A TRUE BILL
`
`
` Foreperson of the Grand Jury
`E’ /O)’
`
`Date:
`
`Assistant United States Attorney
`
`DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
`
`September 12, 2012
`
`Returned into the District Court by the Grand Jurors and filed.
`
`7
`Deputy Clerk
`
`06L
`
`\L:L+$
`
`9/1%//L