The court permanently detained the hacker Teodor Iliev, representing under the pseudonym “Emil Külev”. For him, the prosecution claims that over the years he managed to “break through“ the databases of dozens of government institutions, banks, insurance companies and other companies. According to the prosecution, he penetrated the information arrays of institutions and companies, copied them and used them to extort money from them. Last year, the 21-year-old man announced that he had also siphoned data from the insurance company's system, which was said to be controlled by Alexei Petrov.
According to the defense of Teodor Iliev, there is no direct evidence that the hacker "Emil Külev" and Teodor Iliev are the same person. According to Iliev's lawyer, the prescribed punishment for such a crime is not high enough to require custody. The hacker's defense pointed out that the law enforcement authorities made the connection between the person of Iliev and the hacker Emil Külev based on Internet publications, internal feeling and rumors.
Furthermore, in the pre-trial proceedings documents, it was written that an inspection of the internet space was carried out, but it was not clear how exactly it was carried out. In addition, Teodor Iliev has a clean criminal record, as this in combination with the lack, according to the defense, of materials proving that the hacker "Emil Külev" is Teodor Iliev - prove that there is no need for a restraining order. Iliev himself claims that he does not understand the accusation.
The court explained that in the protocol for the search of Todor Iliev's apartment, it was written that flash drives, a mobile phone and other devices were seized, but they were not the property of Iliev, but of a woman with whom he is supposed to be living together . In addition, part of the witnesses are two employees of the GDBOP, who saw an object falling from the second floor, which turned out to be a laptop. A broken portable computer was also found next to a container near the apartment block where Iliev lived.
GDBOP employees also saw an open window on the second floor. Now it must be established whether this window is of Todor Iliev's residence.
The court announced that the witnesses are divided into two groups. The first group are people who were brought in to establish facts and circumstances surrounding Iliev's personality. The other group are persons who claim to have communicated with the hacker "Emil Külev" and on the basis of such testimony, a reasonable assumption is made that the hacker "Kyulev" is Todor Iliev.
Stefan Cholakov is the name of the witness who gave the testimony on the basis of which the prosecution is based. Witnesses who worked in the hacked companies and institutions were also questioned, who received emails from a hacker with the pseudonym "Emil Külev", who wanted to transfer funds and assets to him in order to return sensitive information that was stolen from their databases. The mistake of the hacker "Emil Külev" was that he allowed a conversation between him and a witness to be recorded at a time when his voice modulator was not on. However, the record is without expertise.
The court considered it important the measure of Todor Iliev to allow him to participate in the pre-trial proceedings, since the case deals with a very complex legal and technological matter. In addition, in a short period of time, the seizure of Iliev's crypto-assets in the cross-border legal entities that he used to store the cryptocurrency will be requested.
The alleged real name of the hacker with the pseudonym "Emil Külev" is Teodor Iliev. He has no convictions and was born in 2003. He claims to be unemployed with a secondary education. The charges against him cover a period of 4 years, which means that at the time of the potential commission of the crimes, he was a minor.
After receiving the ransoms, Iliev transferred the funds to other legal entities. The information, according to the prosecutor, was "recorded in the Bitcoin blockchain system", which proved the path of the money. The state prosecution claims that there is a danger that Teodor Iliev will abscond or commit another crime. During the court session, Teodor Iliev did not seem worried or under emotional affect.