MIL Security Engine-1

Source: United States Department of Justice

James Gaskins, 30, a previously convicted felon residing in the District of Columbia, was sentenced today in U.S. District Court to 26 months in prison in connection with his possession of a loaded Glock 9mm pistol that was recovered after he attempted to flee from police in Southeast Washington, announced U.S. Attorney Jeanine Ferris Pirro.  

Source: United States Department of Justice

Cost to the U.S. Government in the Millions of Dollars

Source: United States Department of Justice

Remarks as Prepared for Delivery, “The Innovation Dance: Navigating the Balance of Intellectual Property and Antitrust in a Global World”

Good afternoon and thank you for inviting me to speak at the Hudson Institute Forum for Intellectual Property. I am very pleased to be here. The Hudson Institute’s mission is, in part, to “challenge conventional thinking . . . through interdisciplinary studies in defense, international relations, economics, energy, technology, culture, and law.”[1] Successful management of the intersection of law, technology, and economics is key for achieving prosperity, and is something I wish to speak more about today.

In today’s economy, we have no choice but to approach problems from an interdisciplinary perspective to ensure that the law is working to foster innovation. For example, this Administration has addressed the issue in its “National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence,” proclaiming that “American creators, publishers, and innovators should be protected from AI-generated outputs that infringe their protected content, without undermining lawful innovation and free expression.”[2] The balance between protecting creators and inventors in a way that incentivizes further innovation while still encouraging lawful non-infringing uses and follow-on advances is a delicate dance.

A robust intellectual property regime plays this key role of promoting innovation and competition. And this dynamic competition is essential to providing American consumers with lower prices, higher quality products, and greater product choice.  This is why the Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division, in collaboration with our expert colleagues from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), have given considerable thought to this policy area.

Today I would like to share some examples of how the Division has advocated for such innovative competition by promoting sound interpretations of intellectual property and antitrust law. It has never been more critical to preserve and continue to develop the intellectual property regime that has played such a crucial role in making our economy the most robust and competitive in the world.

Intellectual Property Laws and Antitrust Laws Both Serve Innovation and Competition

Our founding fathers understood the need for law, technology, and economics to work together to help America become the land of innovation, freedom, and opportunity. One of the enumerated powers of Congress is to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”[3] This so-called “IP clause” describes what we now know as patents and copyrights in terms of “exclusive rights.”

As acknowledged in the DOJ and FTC 2017 Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property, these exclusive rights create incentives for innovation by “establishing enforceable property rights for the creators of new and useful products, more efficient processes, and original works of expression.”[4] These property rights incentivize the creation of original products and works, facilitate their commercialization, encourage public disclosure, and prevent imitation that would reduce incentives to innovate.

While the right to exclude others from using an invention or copying a creative work may not, at first blush, appear to facilitate procompetitive activity – it does. As you know, the Antitrust Division enforces the Sherman Act, which prohibits anticompetitive conduct. Antitrust laws ensure that new innovative products are developed and sold in a competitive marketplace free of collusion. Courts have long recognized that IP laws and antitrust laws are “complementary” and share the common purpose of “encouraging innovation, industry and competition.”[5] Thus, strong IP enforcement and strong Antitrust enforcement work in tandem to protect and promote our innovative, competition-based economy.

However, patent protection and the right to exclude are generally only procompetitive where it is within the scope of the government-granted patent. And I will also be touching on that angle later in my remarks today.

Patents, Whether Standard-Essential or Non-Standard-Essential, Do Not Inherently Establish Market Power

Although courts once conflated holding a patent and possession of market power, modern antitrust enforcers and courts reject such a simplistic view. As early as the initial 1995 Antitrust-IP Guidelines, the antitrust agencies explained that a patent (or copyright or trade secret) does not carry a presumption that such intellectual property confers market power.[6] The U.S. Supreme Court has since endorsed the antitrust agencies’ position on this issue.[7] There is now a consensus that antitrust laws apply to conduct involving patents just as they apply to other types of conduct, and that the existence of market power depends on the assessment of other factors, including whether there are actual or potential close substitutes for that patented product. The existence of such substitutes would constrain the exercise of any market power.

The folly of treating patent rights as synonymous with market power is well-illustrated by the story of the modern intermittent windshield wiper, invented and patented by Robert Kearns. Kearns attempted to license his invention to the major automobile makers but failed after they chose to infringe and hold out. Instead, he was awarded a royalty, after having to engage in decades of litigation, when a jury found that the Ford car company had infringed his intellectual property.[8] Kearns also engaged in protracted litigation against another car company, Chrysler, and won royalites. But was never able to successfully commercialize his invention.[9] Kearns had a patent, but no market power.

Last October, the Antitrust Division filed a statement of interest in Disney v. InterDigital in Delaware district court, clarifying this principle in the context of standard essential patents. Standard essential patents are patents that have been incorporated into and are essential to the implementation of a collaborative industry standard. The Division explained in its Disney v. InterDigital statement that, as with non-essential patents, there is “no presumption of market power simply because a patent has been incorporated into a standard.”[10]

As the Division’s statement of interest outlines, whether a standard essential patent owner has market power or can exercise it depends on an assessment of various factors. First, it depends on whether there are alternatives to the standard. Just as products compete against each other, different standards also compete against each other. If the standard has substitutes, then incorporation into the standard may not confer market power.[11] Second, what are the contractual obligations and commitments that the patent holder may have voluntarily undertaken pursuant to the policies of the specific standards development organization that created the standard? If the patent holder has pledged that it will license its patents on a reasonable and non-discriminatory (“RAND”) or a fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”) basis, then those commitments could protect against any exercise of potential market power that could have been conferred by standard essential patent status.[12]

In Disney v. InterDigital, there were allegations in the complaint that the patent holder, InterDigital, had undertaken numerous commitments, including promising to license the standard essential patents at stake to implementers of the standard on RAND terms. And there were no allegations regarding potential alternative technologies. Under those circumstances, antitrust demands additional analysis. Establishing market power cannot depend merely on incorporation into a standard. To rely on such a presumption would be an incorrect application of the antitrust laws that creates an unwarranted assumption of market power. It may also unduly reduce the incentives for innovators to contribute cutting-edge technology to procompetitive industry standards.

Notably, the Division’s clarification regarding analysis of market power conferred by standard essential patents is consistent with the longtime position of the European Commission, whose horizontal cooperation guidelines explain that “there is no presumption that holding or exercising [intellectual property rights] essential to a standard equates to the possession or exercise of market power. [Rather t]he question of market power can only be assessed on a case-by-case basis.”[13]

Seeking Injunction Generally Protected from Antitrust Liability and Consistent with Public Interest

An additional concern implicated in the Disney v. InterDigital litigation was the plaintiff’s efforts to impose antitrust liability on InterDigital for seeking judicial redress for alleged infringement. However, as the Division’s statement points out, such petitioning activity is not only constitutionally protected by the First Amendment but, also, litigation is typically the only way to enforce intellectual property rights. Therefore, as the Antitrust Division explained, patent holders are generally protected from antitrust liability, let alone the possibility of treble damages, for seeking redress in the courts.[14]

The Antitrust Division has remained vigilant on this front, filing another statement of interest this spring in Samsung v. Netlist, which reiterated these basic points: (1) Standard essential patents should not carry a presumption of market power; (2) market power analysis requires the same fact-specific approach whether in the essential-patent or non-essential-patent context; and (3) a violation of contractual obligations undertaken in the standard essential patent context does not, in and of itself, constitute anticompetitive conduct.[15]

In addition, last November DOJ, together with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, filed a joint comment on the public interest in an International Trade Commission (ITC) proceeding involving a complaint filed by Netlist against Samsung regarding Dynamic Random Access Memory Devices (DRAM).  In that complaint, Netlist alleged that Samsung, among other respondents, was importing devices that infringe on Netlist’s patented DRAM devices. In the comment, DOJ and USPTO explain that, even if an infringing company’s technology is generally important, this importance does not, in and of itself, equate to being in the public interest and weighing against issuance of an exclusionary order. This matter illustrates how exclusion orders at the ITC can safeguard American innovation.

The joint comment also emphasized that the public interest is not served by transforming the public interest factors in the statute into barriers to intellectual property enforcement.[16] Rather, a crucial goal must be to honor Congress’ intent in structuring the ITC system of redress, and refrain from encroaching on parties’ First Amendment rights to petition the courts to seek relief from patent infringement.

Notably, DOJ’s guidance regarding injunctions, much of which was issued with the USPTO, seems consistent with European law as reflected in the 2015 European Court of Justice (ECJ) Huawei-ZTE decision.[17] That decision analyzed whether a standard essential patent holder who gave a FRAND assurance may violate EU competition law by seeking an injunction against an infringer who declared itself willing to negotiate towards a license. In it, the ECJ explained that European Law “provides for a range of legal remedies aimed at ensuring a high level of protection for intellectual-property rights” and for “the right of access to a tribunal”[18] – these principles seem to mirror the US patent law and Constitutional right to seek redress in courts for patent infringement. The ECJ further explained that “[T]he proprietor of the essential patent…has the right to bring an action for a prohibitory injunction or for the recall of products”[19] Similarly to the U.S. “sham” litigation and Walker Process exceptions, the ECJ found that this right can only be limited in particular circumstances, noting that an essential patent holder should not be barred from bringing the claim in the first instance. 

The Division Moves the Needle on Injunctions – Collision v. Samsung

As part of the U.S. interest in ensuring that the patent system’s incentives work for a variety of innovators, including those that commercialize their IP through licensing, the DOJ and USPTO recently filed a statement of interest in Collision v. Samsung, which addressed the possibility of injunctive relief for a non-practicing patent holder after it proves infringement.[20] 

After Collision (the patent holder) won a jury verdict that Samsung had infringed four of its patents, it sought to enjoin Samsung from further infringement of one of them.[21] As the Supreme Court held in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., a patent holder seeking an injunction must satisfy the traditional four-factor test, including demonstrating irreparable injury and the inadequacy of monetary remedies.[22]  

The joint statement of interest explains that patent holders willing to license their patents can, under certain circumstances, establish irreparable injury and the insufficiency of monetary relief.[23] This position follows from the Supreme Court’s decision in eBay, which stated that such patent holders “may be able to satisfy the traditional four-factor test” and should not be “categorically den[ied] . . . the opportunity to do so.”[24]

The district court agreed.  Consistent with the Division’s arguments, it held that Collision had established irreparable harm and that monetary damages would be inadequate.[25]  While it found that Collision had established these factors through alternative arguments, it noted that the statement of interest was “correct” that, under certain circumstances, “irreparable harm can be demonstrated by a non-practicing entity given that (1) patents can be difficult to value and (2) damages can be difficult to calculate.”[26]  And the court rejected Samsung’s argument that “verge[d] on an assertion that a non-practicing entity cannot establish irreparable harm.”[27] 

While the court ultimately denied Collision’s motion for failing to establish adequately the third and fourth eBay factors (the balance of hardships and the public interest),[28] the statement of interest helped establish an important point.  Namely, there are circumstances under which a patent holder that licenses its patents can establish irreparable harm and inadequacy of monetary remedies.

Intellectual Property Enforcement Strengthens Global Competition

Now that we have discussed an example of our domestic IP dance, I want to turn to an international example which demonstrates that strong protection of IP rights benefits robust market competition worldwide.

Each year the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) issues a Special 301 Report, as required by Congress, which is a review of the global state of IP rights protection and enforcement.[29] Internationally, failure to enforce IP laws as required under the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights[30] (“WTO TRIPS Agreement”) creates barriers to trade that negatively impact U.S. companies and consumers. Without robust IP protection and enforcement globally, American innovators cannot “defend their rights when their IP is stolen or infringed” and, consequently, the benefits of that IP cannot flow back to the United States economy.[31] Effectively, failure to enforce IP laws creates a non-tariff barrier to trade, as it can subsidize domestic industry or increase costs on foreign industry.

The recently issued 2026 Special 301 Report, highlighted several “emerging global trends [that] have the potential to improperly and unfairly harm U.S. innovators” related to patents and standards.  The Intellectual Property and Standards section of the report[32] underscores the importance of IP protection to U.S. leadership in developing next-generation technologies, and states unequivocally that “American innovation leadership, economic competitiveness, and national security are threatened by proposals or actions that undermine the effective enforcement of patent rights.” The Report went on to identify three emerging global trends that improperly harms U.S. innovators:

• Court rulings called “anti-suit injunctions” that bar U.S. companies from enforcing their patents anywhere else in the world; 
• Judicial or administrative procedures that compel innovators to grant, without their consent, global licenses to patented technologies on terms set by the court or the government; and
• Judicial or legislative efforts to prohibit the seeking or availability of injunctions against patent infringement, the core remedy that allows patent holders to enforce their rights. 

The Report’s findings dovetail with the antitrust policy principles I highlighted earlier, including the importance of robust intellectual property protection both domestically and globally; an unfettered intellectual property marketplace; and the unhindered availability of injunctions and other remedies against infringement. They are also consistent with globally recognized WTO treaty obligations.[33] So it’s a case where, while arriving from different angles, antitrust and international trade policies converge around the same principles.     

Accurate Patent Disclosure is Key for Promoting Competition

Finally, as I observed at the outset, part of successfully choreographing the dance of incentivizing innovation and protecting competition is ensuring that patent protection is not used to extend the protection beyond the correct scope of the government-granted patent. Such calibration is key to striking the right balance between patent protection and encouraging lawful non-infringing uses and follow-on advances which are procompetitive.

Thus, while the Antitrust Division has been active in advocating for strong IP protections, it also recently filed a statement of interest emphasizing that the borders of patent protection must be carefully policed.[34] In Corteva v. Inari, the Division explained that the essential quid pro quo of the patent system means that “the public must receive meaningful disclosure in exchange for being excluded from practicing the invention for a limited period of time.”[35] As this matter also implicates an international patent regime, it highlights that U.S. companies receive reciprocal benefits and IP protections in foreign jurisdictions when we encourage the proper interpretation of our domestic IP laws.

To conclude, the IP-antitrust dance has long been in full swing. Enforcement of both IP and Antitrust laws enhances competition, innovation and trade domestically and globally, and there seems to be an encouraging level of convergence in the policy and analysis of these issues in the U.S. and across the Atlantic. We are committed to continuing our policy work in this important area, together with the rest of our US government interagency and our international counterparts.

Source: United States Department of Justice Criminal Division

An illegal alien from Guatemala and a Guatemalan national have pleaded guilty to human smuggling charges related to the crash of a tractor-trailer packed with at least 160 illegal aliens which resulted in the deaths of more than 50 people, including unaccompanied children, and injured over 100 more. These two defendants are part of a group of six who were charged in this case. Five of six defendants have now admitted to their role in a conspiracy to bring illegal aliens from Guatemala into the United States. 

Agapito Jorge Ventura, 34, and an illegal alien from Guatemala, and Oswaldo Manuel Zavala Quino, 26, a Guatemalan national extradited to the United States in 2025, acknowledged that they conspired with other smugglers to smuggle and transport illegal aliens, both adults and unaccompanied minors, from Guatemala through Mexico to the United States. 

 “This crime shows that human smugglers care only about profiting from their crimes, not about the illegal aliens they transport and the life-and-death risks to which they expose them” said Assistant Attorney General A. Tysen Duva of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division. “These defendants worked together to exploit vulnerable people by breaking the immigration laws of this country, with deadly consequences that followed. Robust border enforcement avoids deadly results like this. The Criminal Division will continue to pursue those who put profit over people and ensure our nation’s immigration laws are enforced.”

“With today’s guilty pleas, five defendants charged in this case have now been held accountable for one of the deadliest human smuggling tragedies in recent memory,” said U.S. Attorney John E. Marck for the Southern District of Texas. “These defendants treated more than 150 people as cargo, packing them into a tractor-trailer for profit with total disregard for human life. The Southern District of Texas will continue to hunt down smugglers wherever they hide, because there is no place on earth safe enough to escape justice for the lives lost on that Chiapas roadside.”

“This case underscores U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Homeland Security Investigations’ (HSI) relentless pursuit of transnational criminal organizations that profit from the exploitation of vulnerable individuals,” said Acting Executive Associate Director John A. Condon of  HSI. “The guilty pleas of these defendants send a clear message: those who orchestrate and facilitate dangerous human smuggling operations — placing lives at grave risk — will be held accountable. HSI remains committed to working with our domestic and international partners to dismantle these criminal networks, protect our borders, and uphold the rule of law.”

Aliens paid Ventura, Zavala Quino, and their co-conspirators to be smuggled into the United States, with Ventura coordinating from the Houston area. During the previous administration’s policy to parole illegal aliens into the United States, Ventura also facilitated the release of Guatemalan aliens who were smuggled illegally into the United States from U.S. immigration authorities, to include unaccompanied minors. Ventura provided his coconspirators, including Zavala Quino, with falsified scripts and instructions to provide to adults and unaccompanied minors on what to say to immigration officials if apprehended to secure their release. Ventura would also provide a person who would falsely pose as a relative of the apprehended alien to gain the alien’s release.

On Dec. 9, 2021, Ventura, Zavala Quino, and others arranged for the aliens they were smuggling to the United States to be loaded into a tractor trailer that was to transport them through Mexico. Over 150 illegal aliens, including adults and unaccompanied minors, were crammed into the trailer. The vehicle ultimately crashed north of the Guatemala/Mexico border near Tuxtla Guiterrez, Chiapas, Mexico, resulting in deaths and serious bodily injury.

Ventura and Zavala Quino pleaded guilty to conspiracy to bring and attempt to bring an illegal alien to the United States, placing life in jeopardy, causing serious bodily injury, and resulting in death. They will be sentenced on Oct. 6 and each face a maximum penalty of life in prison. A federal district judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

Daniel Zavala Ramos, Josefa Canil De Zavala, Alberto Macario Chitic, Tomas Quino Canil, and Oswaldo Manuel Zavala Quino, were extradited from Guatemala in 2025 to face charges. Authorities arrested Jorge Agapito Ventura, 33, at his residence in Cleveland, Texas, in December 2024. 

Zavala Ramos, 42, pleaded guilty on April 7. Canil De Zavala, 44, and Macario Chitic, 33, pleaded guilty on June 11. 

HSI’s Washington, D.C. Field Office investigated the case in partnership with HSI Guatemala and HSI Mexico. Valuable assistance was provided by HSI’s Human Smuggling Unit in Washington, D.C.; HSI Houston; HSI Laredo; U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s International Interdiction Task Force; U.S. Border Patrol; Liberty County Constable, Precinct 6; Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) Houston; U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Texas; and the Criminal Division’s Office of Overseas Prosecutorial Development, Assistance, and Training. The Justice Department’s Office of International Affairs provided significant assistance in securing the arrests and extraditions of the defendants. Guatemalan prosecutors from the Office of Public Ministry and Mexican prosecutors from the Republic of Mexico’s Federal Prosecutions Office, with the support of law enforcement officials from both countries, were also instrumental in furthering the investigation.

Senior Trial Attorney Danielle Hickman of the Criminal Division’s Human Rights and Special Prosecutions Section and Assistant U.S. Attorneys Mary Lou Castillo and Jennifer Day for the Southern District of Texas are prosecuting the case, with substantial assistance from HRSP Latin American Specialist/Historian Joanna Crandall.

The investigation and charges are supported and prosecuted by Joint Task Force Alpha (JTFA), the Department’s lead effort in combating high-impact human smuggling and trafficking committed by cartels and Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCOs). A highly successful partnership between the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), JTFA investigates and prosecutes human smuggling and trafficking and related immigration crimes that impact public safety and border security. JTFA’s mission is to target the leaders and organizers of Cartels and TCOs involved in human smuggling and trafficking throughout the Americas. The Attorney General has elevated and expanded JTFA to target the most prolific and dangerous human smuggling and trafficking groups operating not only in Mexico and the Northern Triangle countries of Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras, but also in Canada, the Caribbean, and the maritime border, and elsewhere. Led by the Criminal Division’s Human Rights and Special Prosecutions Section and supported by the Money Laundering, Narcotics and Forfeiture Section, the Office of International Affairs, and the Office of Enforcement Operations, among others, JTFA has dedicated Assistant U.S. Attorneys from the Southern District of California; District of Arizona; District of New Mexico; Western and Southern Districts of Texas; Southern District of Florida; Northern District of New York; and District of Vermont. JTFA also partners with other USAOs throughout the country and supports high-priority cases in any district. All JTFA cases rely on substantial law enforcement resources from DHS, including ICE/HSI and CBP/BP and OFO, as well as FBI and other law enforcement agencies. To date, JTFA’s work has resulted in more than 464 domestic and international arrests of leaders, organizers, and significant facilitators of alien smuggling and/or trafficking; more than 414 U.S. convictions; and more than 360 significant jail sentences imposed, and forfeitures of substantial assets.

This case is also part of Operation Take Back America, a nationwide initiative that marshals the full resources of the Department of Justice to repel the invasion of illegal immigration, achieve the total elimination of cartels and transnational criminal organizations, and protect our communities from the perpetrators of violent crime.

Source: United States Department of Justice Criminal Division

ATHENS, Ga. – A Georgia inmate and a co-conspirator were sentenced to federal prison today for trafficking fentanyl and a synthetic designer drug from China into the state resulting from a Homeland Security Task Force investigation led by FBI and the United States Postal Inspection Service.

Source: United States Department of Justice Criminal Division

A San Antonio-based member of a Nihilistic Violent Extremist (NVE) group related to the 764 network was sentenced today to 40 years in prison, lifetime supervised release, and to pay $10,000 in restitution for racketeering activity and multiple acts relating to the sexual exploitation of children.

According to court documents, Alexis Aldair Chavez, also known as Zack and Zack8884, 19, was an administrator and online leader of the ‘8884’ network, which is a network related to 764. These NVEs share accelerationist goals that include social unrest and the downfall of the current world order, including the U.S. Government. Members of 8884 work in concert with one another towards a common purpose of destroying civilized society through the corruption and exploitation of vulnerable populations, including minors. 

NVEs engage in criminal conduct within the United States and abroad, in furtherance of political, social, or religious goals that derive primarily from a hatred of society at large and a desire to bring about its collapse by sowing indiscriminate chaos, destruction, and social instability. NVEs demand, coerce, and extort victims to engage in variety of violent conduct, including self-mutilation, online and in-person sexual acts, harm to animals, sexual exploitation of siblings and others, acts of violence, threats of violence, suicide, and murder.

“Chavez’s crimes reveal the ruthless exploitation and manipulation at the core of NVE groups,” said Assistant Attorney General for National Security John A. Eisenberg. “These organizations target children as part of their broader mission to spread terror. These groups ultimately seek nothing less than the destruction of our society. NSD will use every resource at its disposal to identify and prosecute 764-linked criminality and to protect the most innocent among us from these predators.”

“What Alexis Chavez and other members of these Nihilistic Violent Extremist groups have done to the vulnerable children they target is among the most disturbing conduct this office has prosecuted,” said U.S. Attorney Justin R. Simmons for the Western District of Texas. “Parents need to know what their children are doing online and must stay engaged, ask difficult questions, and not fall into the trap of believing their child is “just playing games” or “just talking with their friends.” There is darkness present within many people in this world that want nothing more than to see the United States and western civilization fail. There is no limit to the actions these individuals will take to accomplish that goal, including torturing and abusing children. Regardless of one’s inherent motivations, our office and our law enforcement partners at the local, state and federal levels investigate and prosecute these cases with absolute dedication because protecting our children is not just a priority; it is the priority.”

“Nothing is more abhorrent than those who prey on children and other vulnerable members of our society and this defendant will pay a steep price for doing just that,” said Acting Assistant Director Coult Markovsky of the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division. “The FBI has made it a high priority to identity and arrest Nihilistic Violent Extremists who coerce juveniles into horrific acts of self-harm. We will never let up on our efforts and will continue working closely with our Justice Department partners to ensure these predators are held accountable.”

“This sentencing demonstrates the FBI’s unwavering resolve to identify, hunt down, investigate, and prosecute criminals like Chavez who prey on children through violent online networks, including 764, and orchestrate horrific, unspeakable acts of exploitation and violence,” said Special Agent in Charge Daniel Faith of the FBI San Antonio Field Office. “These predators use social media, messaging apps, gaming platforms, chat rooms, and video services to groom vulnerable children. Staying engaged in your child’s online life, maintaining open communication, recognizing the warning signs, and reporting suspicious online activity to law enforcement are critical to stopping these offenders. Learn more at: PSA. The FBI will use every lawful authority at our disposal to dismantle these criminal networks and hold offenders accountable because no child should ever become the next victim of these predators.”

On or about October 2023, Chavez and a co-conspirator attempted to have a minor female kill herself in a video chat by overdosing on pills. The two conspirators recorded the attempted suicide to obtain “content” that would allow them to maintain and increase their status within 8884. Approximately two months later, Chavez and the minor female victim worked together to coerce a female located overseas to strip naked on camera, cut herself, and engage in sexual acts. They also extorted another female by forcing the victim to cut the name “Zack” into herself.

Around Dec. 29, 2023, Chavez and a co-conspirator coerced another minor female to cut her tongue as well as torture and kill a cat on a live video call. That same month, Chavez and another co-conspirator worked together to groom and extort several other minor females. In one instance, the two conspirators coerced a female victim to light her arm on fire and have the fire burn through her skin and deeper into her body, while on a recorded video chat within the 8884 channel. They also groomed another minor female victim, forcing her to drink her own urine and attempt to overdose on unknown pills.

On or about Jan. 23, 2024, Chavez and a co-conspirator threatened and coerced a minor female victim to engage in sexually obscene activities and other egregious acts. He was arrested on Oct. 24, 2024, and pleaded guilty on Dec. 19, 2025, to one count of racketeering, one count of distribution of child pornography, and one count of possession of child pornography.

The FBI San Antonio Field Office investigated the case with assistance from FBI Washington Field Office.

Assistant U.S. Attorneys Mark Roomberg and Bill Harris for the Western District of Texas, and Trial Attorneys Justin Sher and James Donnelly of the National Security Division’s Counterterrorism Section are prosecuting the case.

The Justice Department remains vigilant against the threat of Nihilistic Violent Extremist (NVE) networks, like 764, that operate within the United States and around the globe. NVEs often target vulnerable individuals, including minors, using social media platforms to share CSAM and gore material, and groom victims toward committing acts of violence. Victims are often extorted, coerced, compelled, and blackmailed into complying with NVE demands, including self-mutilation, online and in-person sexual acts, harm to animals, sexual exploitation of siblings and others, acts of violence, threats of violence, suicide, and murder. For more information on how to protect children and others, read about the online risks here: Parents, Caregivers, Teachers — FBI and the FBI’s March 2025 public service announcement.

This case was brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative to combat the epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse launched in May 2006 by the Department of Justice. Led by United States Attorneys’ Offices and the Criminal Division’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS), Project Safe Childhood marshals federal, state, and local resources to better locate, apprehend and prosecute individuals who exploit children via the Internet, as well as to identify and rescue victims. For more information about Project Safe Childhood, please visit www.justice.gov/psc.

Source: United States Department of Justice Criminal Division

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah – A federal grand jury in Salt Lake City returned an indictment today charging an illegal alien from Mexico with drug and immigration crimes after 171 grams of fentanyl powder was allegedly found in his vehicle during a traffic stop. 

Source: United States Department of Justice Criminal Division

MUSKOGEE, OKLAHOMA – The United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Oklahoma announced that Raciel Osorio Lopez, a/k/a Raciel Osoriolopez, a/k/a Raciel Osorio-Lopez, age 33, a Mexican national unlawfully present in Atoka, Oklahoma, was sentenced to time served for one count of Unlawful Reentry of Removed Alien.On April 28, 2026, Osorio Lopez pleaded guilty in federal district court.  According to investigators, on March 27, 2026, Osario Lopez, an alien, was found in the United States without obtaining the express consent of the Secretary of Homeland Security to reapply for admission to the United States after having been previously removed on April 28, 2015, August 19, 2015, and March 9, 2017.

Source: United States Department of Justice Criminal Division

Two foreign nationals have pleaded guilty to smuggling charges related to the crash of a tractor-trailer packed with at least 160 illegal aliens which resulted in the deaths of more than 50 people, including unaccompanied children, and injured over 100 more