Human rights activists expose abuses by Texas prosecutors in the case of Mark Sokolowski

Feb 5, 2024, 10:16:46 AM

The Texas prosecutor's office and the FBI in their statement to the media disregarded the presumption of innocence in the case of Mark Sokolowski.

On October 25, 2022, the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas held a press conference to announce the charges against Mark Sokolowski and the creation of a special website for alleged victims of the IT hacker. The US Attorney and the head of the local FBI office addressed the media.

Link to the press conference 

Link to the audio file

Link to pdf file (translation)

In their comments, neither of the participants of the press conference qualified their statement by discussing the presumption of innocence or stating that these were only accusations and that no judgment had been rendered. In other words, both spoke as if Mark Sokolowski's alleged guilt was obvious and undeniable. In addition, at this press conference, copies of the indictment were distributed, which contained photographs of Sokolovsky holding bundles of money.

The Internet publication "The Other Side of the Dialogue" has a scientific and legal opinion of a commission of experts in the field of law and political science in the interests of Mark Sokolovsky. To write the scientific expert opinion, it was decided to form a commission of experts consisting of scholars from the State University of Trade and Economics. Each expert acted in a personal capacity and prepared an answer to a specific question assigned to him or her.

The full version of the scientific and legal opinion of the expert commission can be found at the LINK

However, we would like to draw the readers' attention to page 43 of this opinion,

the expertise of Mark Sokolovsky

where it is written:

"It is also worth noting that according to the prosecution's version of the case set out in the indictment, Mark Sokolovsky created and comprehensively controlled the operation of the malware. Moreover, in the process of rejecting Mark Sokolovsky's appeal, the prosecutor's office argued that he would be able to return to managing the styler. This version is contradicted by the fact that no later than January 17, 2023, the channel "Raccon Stealer| Racoon Officsal" appeared in Telegram, reproducing some texts from the description of the stealer, the authorship and management of which is attributed to Mark Sokolovsky in the indictment. In particular, the channel posted screenshots of two logs of the software offered for rent, which are visually identical to those logs that belonged to the 2019 stealer. In addition, the dates on the screenshots of the logs indicate August 8 and 9, 2022, when Mark Sokolowski was in prison. This channel offers apparently the same styler, which certainly indicates that it is not Mark Sokolowski, who is still in prison, who is running this malware. Thus, the main part of Sokolovsky's accusations is losing its basis."

 Mark S.Galdo

Michael S. Galdo Deputy Director of the U.S. Department of Justice's Covid-19 Fraud Control Section

What did we see at the press conference of those distinguished persons who identified themselves as the Texas prosecutor's office and the FBI? And nothing interesting about the case, only harassment of a person whose guilt has not been proven.

Ashley Hough, the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas, FBI Special Agent in Charge Oliver Rich, Special Agent in Charge of Cybersecurity Mark Martin, FBI Special Agent in Charge of Supervision Matthew Sal, Chief of the Criminal Division of the office Christina Clayton, and the prosecutors involved in this case, Michael S. Galdo and Kart Sri. All of these people spent almost 24 minutes thanking each other and telling each other how great they were for solving the crime of the century. Not a single piece of evidence in the indictment, just assumptions and speculation by prosecutors. In addition, these respected people asked journalists to spread this false information to as many people as possible.

More about journalists to come. Now let's talk about what formed the basis of the indictment.

Most likely, Michael S. Galdo, the acting director of the COVID-19 Fraud Control Unit, was interested in the fact that fraudsters used a "trendy disease" in their fraudulent malware. The coronavirus pandemic has affected all spheres of society in all countries of the world. The Texas Attorney General's Office is no exception. Michael Galdo is not a cybersecurity expert, he is the head of the anti-covert fraud unit. Despite the fact that there are no expert opinions in the case, Galdo published a step-by-step scheme


 Screen shot of the step-by-step scheme from the indictment

Michael Gauldo also uses a photo that has never been published on social media, but was in Mark Sokolovsky's phone, which he took on the eve of buying an apartment in Kharkiv with money lent by his parents. If the investigators wanted to, they would have thoroughly investigated this photo of Mark Sokolovsky holding his parents' money. By the way, there is a power of attorney for this money, which Mark borrowed from his parents, and this can be easily verified. So, in the photo that prosecutors presented as evidence of cyber fraud, Mark Sokolowski is shown before buying an apartment in Kharkiv, and not with the money that the US Attorney's Office is imputing to him. According to the Texas prosecutor's office, Mark Sokolowski obtained this money fraudulently, allegedly after committing a cybercrime, and he is proud of it. This is a strong argument for the Texas prosecutor's office.

At the press conference, it was said that the investigation still has an equally strong argument that will be indisputable evidence - a photo. Allegedly, there is a photo of Mark Sokolovsky, which is annex "a". The photo is part of the original package of the indictment, but it was not included in the package that will be distributed at the press conference. Why? This is a rhetorical question. We may find out what could be in that photo that would constitute irrefutable evidence, but it is unclear when.

After the press conference, many articles appeared on the Internet detailing the alleged crimes, the alleged escape from Ukraine to evade the draft, and the allegedly luxurious lifestyle of Mark Sokolovsky.

The editors of The Other Side of the Dialogue have carefully studied every publication in the spring of 2022 regarding the detention of Mark Sokolowski, the "cybercriminal" of all time, in the Netherlands. It came to the conclusion that almost all media outlets refer (at least one of these articles is 100% accurate, and all the others refer to each other) to "two sources close to the investigation" who spoke on "condition of anonymity." Therefore, we believe that it is safe to conclude that these sources are working for US law enforcement.

While U.S. law and rules governing the practice of law prohibit the government from intentionally prejudicing the public against a person accused of a crime, intent is difficult to prove, and prosecutors resist, asserting their right to free speech. As a result, existing rules are rarely enforced, and it is common in the United States for the government to present its case to the press before it even gets to court.

It is very difficult to determine the motivation behind this proliferation of negative publicity. The commentator suggests at least two reasons underlying the proliferation of negative publicity by the Government in criminal prosecutions. First, all the leading prosecutors in the United States are either elected or political appointees. In addition, cases are decided by juries drawn from members of the public who are likely to be exposed to this negative publicity, making it easier for the government to win in court.

There have been several cases where negative media coverage is believed to have led to wrongful convictions. Here are some examples:

"The Central Park Five: In 1989, five black and Latino teenagers were arrested, convicted, and sentenced to prison for the brutal rape of a white woman in New York City's Central Park. Despite the fact that they insisted on their innocence, the media actively covered the story and portrayed the defendants as guilty. It was only in 2002, when DNA evidence proved their innocence and the real perpetrator confessed to the crime, that the five men were acquitted and released from prison.

The West Memphis Three: In 1993, three teenagers were arrested, convicted and sentenced to prison for the murder of three boys in West Memphis, Arkansas. The case received wide media coverage, and the defendants were portrayed as satanic cultists. Only in 2011, when DNA evidence proved their innocence, were they released from prison.

The Norfolk Four: In 1997, four Navy sailors were arrested and sentenced to prison for the rape and murder of a woman in Norfolk, Virginia. The media widely covered the story and portrayed the defendants as guilty. It was only in 2009, when DNA evidence proved their innocence and the real perpetrator confessed to the crime, that they were acquitted and released from prison.

These cases demonstrate, among other things, how negative media coverage can contribute to wrongful convictions by shaping public opinion and influencing the judicial process. In these cases, the media coverage was often sensationalized and the defendants were portrayed as guilty before their guilt was proven in court. This can make it difficult for the defendants to get a fair trial and to have the truth of the matter revealed."

Why is the information on the situation of Mark Sokolowski being disseminated and spread by the United States government in a biased and untruthful manner? Why Mark Sokolovskyi has been held in unimaginable conditions in a Dutch prison for two years, without any investigative actions, and is being abused. Who benefits from this and why is it being done?

These are questions that have no answer, but have assumptions.

The editorial board of The Other Side of the Dialogue has appealed to everyone on whom the fate of Ukrainian citizen Mark Sokolowski depends.

The Texas prosecutor's office, which loudly and with pathos accused the Ukrainian citizen, cannot extradite Mark Sokolowski to the United States because he is ill. We have provided a screenshot of the response to Mark Sokolovskyi's American lawyer regarding extradition in our previous publication  

lawyer about Mark's illness


It states:

"The planned extradition of Mark Sokolowski did not take place due to obvious health problems"

This has been happening for two years. Mark Sokolovskyi is ill. And the penitentiary institutions of the Netherlands do nothing to treat the citizen of Ukraine. They reply to all letters that Mark Sokolovskyi is healthy and will be extradited. And they do not care about the fact that Mark Sokolovskyi's representative has published his diary, where Mark describes the inhuman conditions of detention. Mark's mother tells us that Mark's rights are being brutally violated and how Mark is being beaten in terrible conditions in prison, and his mother, a trustee, is deprived of the opportunity to record the beatings and see with her own eyes what is happening to her son.

We also contacted the Embassy of Ukraine in the Kingdom of the Netherlands. They are aware of the situation with Mark Sokolovskyi, but how they take into account the case of citizen M.G. Sokolovskyi is under constant control of the Embassy of Ukraine in the Kingdom of the Netherlands since his detention. The Department of Consular Services of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine is constantly informed about the course of events.

At the same time, they note that Embassy officials do not have the authority to investigate the cause and details of the alleged crime, to assess or determine the accuracy of the facts set forth in foreign official documents. A year ago, they answered their mother that the embassy was taking and would take all possible measures to protect the legal rights of Ukrainian citizen M.G. Sokolovsky. Of course, we did not expect a different response.

Response of the Embassy of Ukraine

There is also an assumption that Sokolowski's case is beneficial to the US government as a high-profile, solved case just before the Senate elections. These "brave" guys and girls came out and used Mark Sokolowski's case to promote themselves, praising each other. They showed the voters how they work and that they don't spend voters' money in vain. At that time, these people did not care whether Mark Sokolovsky was guilty or not. These people were far from investigating, they simply did not conduct it. Anyone who followed the case remembers that as soon as the judge in Mark Sokolovsky's case was replaced, no one else was involved in the case and no one else is now. Having realized that there was no evidence at all, the US government found it beneficial to keep Sokolowski in inhumane conditions in the Netherlands, hoping that something would happen to Sokolowski and the problem would resolve itself.

By the way, in August 2023, Michael S. Galdo, Acting Director of the COVID-19 Fraud Control Unit, spoke in detail about the results of three months of coordinated law enforcement actions, which took place from May to July 2023 and included criminal, civil and forfeiture actions. Office of Public Affairs | Department of Justice Announces Results of Nationwide COVID-19 Fraud Enforcement Effort | U.S. Department of Justice (

"More than 50 U.S. Attorneys' Offices, including the COVID-19 Fraud Strike Force, the Justice Department's Criminal and Civil Divisions, and more than a dozen law enforcement and OIG partners worked together to conduct this review.

"I applaud the hard work of our prosecutors across the country," said Acting Director S. Galdo.

"However, this announcement is not a victory lap. Our mission is not complete. We know from our investigative partners that identifying those who committed aid fraud during the pandemic and recovering stolen funds is difficult work. But the Department of Justice, including our Strike Force, the U.S. Attorney's Office, and the Criminal and Civil Divisions, is committed to using our criminal, civil, and forfeiture tools to bring these fraudsters to justice."

No mention of the "cybercriminal" Mark Sokolowski and no mention of Raccon Stealer, is this not interesting to the acting director of the COVID-19 fraud unit? Of course not, because Mark Sokolovskyi's case is sewn with black threads, and if an average person reads the indictment, they will easily understand that it is an unsubstantiated set of words with one photo, a diagram with COVID-19, and a reference to some mysterious private companies. And where is at least one hint of professional expertise that would dispel all the speculations of the author of this publication?

In this interpretation of the case, it becomes clear why the Ministry of Justice and Defense and personally the Minister, Ms. Dylan Yesilgoz-Zegerius, do not want to be held responsible for the torture of a Ukrainian citizen in a Dutch prison. 

Be that as it may, the editorial board of "The Other Side of the Dialogue" will continue to cover what is really happening to Mark Sokolowski and how the governments of the United States and the Netherlands treat the Ukrainian citizen. People need to know the truth.

A brief history of Mark Sokolowski


To be continued.

Кількість коментів у цієї статті: 0

Залишити коментар

Вашу адресу електронної пошти не буде опубліковано.