Four West African men charged in sick sextortion scam linked to California teen's suicide
High school senior Ryan Last, 17, killed himself in February 2022 just hours after he sent nude photos online to a scammer he believed to be a 20-year-old woman — who then threatened to make the image public if he refused to pay.
'He didn't realize these people were taking advantage of him, and he was terrified of what it would do to us,' Last's mother, Pauline Stuart, told the Los Angeles Times.
Advertisement
Last's death sparked a massive international investigation into the scheme that targeted 'thousands of victims' — including minors — in the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, France, Spain, and Italy, according to federal prosecutors.
5 Ryan Last, 17, killed himself in Feb. 2022 after he was sextorted on Meta.
via San Jose Police Department
5 The high school senior from San Jose planned to attend Washington State University.
via San Jose Police Department
Advertisement
Last was contacted on Meta by Alfred Kassi, of Côte d'Ivoire, who, posing as a young woman, allegedly sent an explicit photo and then asked for one in return.
Kassi then immediately demanded $5,000 from the boy, threatening to share the nude photo with Last's friends and family, CNN reported.
Kassi lowered the price to just $150 when the desperate teen said he couldn't afford what he'd asked. Stuart said that once her son forwarded the money, the scammers 'continued to hound him.'
Before taking his own life, Last wrote a note apologizing for what had happened, his mother said.
Advertisement
Kassi was arrested by Ivorian law enforcement on April 29. He was found with the sextortion exchange still on his phone, according to the Justice Department.
5 Last had sent a nude photo to a scammer he believed to be a 20-year-old woman.
via San Jose Police Department
5 Last's mother she hopes the arrests scare scammers targeting Americans from abroad.
Investigators also identified several money laundering accomplices who had helped Kassi move Last's $150.
Advertisement
One of those alleged money launderers is Oumarou Ouedraogo, who was arrested by Ivorian law enforcement on April 25.
Two other Ivorians, Moussa Diaby and Oumar Cisse, were also part of Kassi's sextortion network and confessed to their own sextortion crimes.
A US-based accomplice, Jonathan Kassi — unrelated to Alfred Kassi — was convicted in 2023 in a California State Court and sentenced to 18 months in jail.
5 Ryan Last
via San Jose Police Department
Côte d'Ivoire does not extradite its own citizens, meaning the four defendants living in Africa will be prosecuted in their home country under Ivorian cybercrime laws, according to the DOJ.
Stuart said she hopes the arrests send a strong message to scammers targeting Americans from abroad.
'We're feeling grateful that [law enforcement officials] didn't give up and they continued to work,' Stuart said.
Advertisement
'Unfortunately, it will never bring Ryan back. It's one of those double-edged swords,' she added.
'My son's still gone, but I'm hoping that, with this arrest, it brings awareness and scares the scammers, because they kind of feel safe over in a foreign country. They don't think they can be touched.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
4 minutes ago
- UPI
More than half of U.S. thinks racism is widespread, according to Gallup
A protestor stands in the street in front of Akron City Justice Center in Akron, Ohio, in July 2022 after Akron police fatally shot Jayland Walker, 25, after a short chase amid public unrest with law enforcement. Washington-based Gallup polling results suggest 64% of Americans believe racism is widespread in the United States. File Photo by Aaron Josefczyk/UPI | License Photo Aug. 20 (UPI) -- New data released Wednesday by Gallup suggests more than half the country believes that racism against Black people is not only alive and well but widespread in the United States. Gallup's newly-released results of 64% nearly tied with its last reading in its 2021 periodic measurements as its highest recorded by the Washington-based firm since 2008, the year Barack Obama was elected to the White House as the nation's first Black president. It's suggesting that 83% of Black adults and 61% of White adults say that racism is widespread. The question was first posed by Gallup experts in 2008, in which results said at the time that only 56% of U.S. adults thought racism was a widespread issues. It saw a reported dip to 51% by the following year. By 2015, its 60% reading came at a time of several high-profile killings of Black civilians at the hands of law enforcement officers and has since remained in that range. According to Gallup, police interactions stood out as the "top" area of unfair treatment toward Black people, with a perceptions of bias in healthcare, shopping, restaurants and workplaces at or near record high returns. Gallup said that non-Hispanic Black adults continue to be "most likely" to say such racism is prevalent in the country, with 83% expressing that view. Results found that smaller majorities of Hispanic respondents at 64% and 61% of non-Hispanic White adults agreed. The findings come from Gallup's survey from June 2-26 and included an oversample to allow for better estimates. "Conversely, Americans' (29%) belief that racism against White people is widespread is the lowest of five readings since 2008," according to Gallup. It added that 68% in its poll say U.S. adults think civil rights "have improved" in their lifetime. "The overall sample was weighted so all racial/ethnic groups are represented in their proper proportions of the U.S. population," according to Gallup officials. But the survey noted how in six of its interactions that dealing with police was seen largely as racially "inequitable." Gallup's results suggests a trend of at least 57% of Americans who believe Black people are treated less fairly than White people in various situations, particularly during traffic incidents that in recent years have been known to turn deadly in multiple states.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
US attorney will no longer bring felony charges against people for carrying rifles or shotguns in DC
WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal prosecutors in the nation's capital will no longer bring felony charges against people for possessing rifles or shotguns in the District of Columbia, according to a new policy adopted by the leader of the nation's largest U.S. attorney's office. That office will continue to pursue charges when someone is accused of using a shotgun or rifle in a violent crime or has a criminal record that makes it illegal to have a firearm. Local authorities in Washington can prosecute people for illegally possessing unregistered rifles and shotguns. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro said in a statement that the change is based on guidance from the Justice Department and the Office of Solicitor General and conforms with two Supreme Court decisions on gun rights. Pirro, a former Fox News host, has been a vocal critic of local officials' crime-fighting efforts since Republican President Donald Trump installed her in office in May. Her policy shift means federal prosecutors will not purse charges under the D.C. law that made it illegal to carry rifles or shotguns, except in limited cases involving permit holders. The change also overlaps with Trump's declaration of a crime emergency in the city, flooding the streets of Washington with patrols of hundreds of federal agents and National Guard members. The White House says 76 firearms have been seized since the crackdown started this month. The new policy also coves large-capacity magazines, but it does not apply to handguns. 'We will continue to seize all illegal and unlicensed firearms, and to vigorously prosecute all crimes connected with them,' Pirro said, adding that she and Trump "are committed to prosecuting gun crime.' Pirro said a blanket ban on possessing shotguns and rifles violates the Supreme Court's ruling in 2022 that struck down a New York gun law and held that Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. She also pointed to the high court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller striking down the city's ban on handguns in the home.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Kilmar Abrego Garcia highlights the Trump administration's criminal vengeance, too
Kilmar Abrego Garcia became the face of the Trump administration's cruelly incompetent immigration agenda, when the government illegally sent him to El Salvador and resisted remedying its unlawful action — until it finally relented and returned him to the U.S., where it had criminal charges waiting for him. In a new motion, his lawyers say that those criminal charges must be dismissed on the grounds of selective and vindictive prosecution. Writing that Abrego 'was charged because he refused to acquiesce in the government's violation of his due process rights,' his lawyers argued that his criminal case 'results from the government's concerted effort to punish him for having the audacity to fight back, rather than accept a brutal injustice.' Noting that he brought a civil lawsuit for his return while he was 'being tortured in El Salvador' earlier this year, they alleged that senior government officials responded by seeking 'vengeance' and beginning 'a public campaign to punish Mr. Abrego for daring to fight back, culminating in the criminal investigation that led to the charges in this case.' The motion argues that the campaign kicked off with Vice President J.D. Vance falsely calling Abrego 'a convicted MS-13 gang member with no legal right to be here,' with other executive branch officials joining the effort to publicly criticize him, including by calling him a terrorist. Abrego pleaded not guilty to the charges of illegally transporting undocumented immigrants. But regardless of whether the government can prove his guilt on those charges beyond a reasonable doubt if the case goes to trial, any reasonable observer can see the vengeful political motivation behind him facing those charges in the first place. Yet, can that reality lead to dismissal of criminal charges? As I noted when Rep. LaMonica McIver, D-N.J., recently filed her own such motion to dismiss charges that she assaulted federal officers at an immigration facility, selective and vindictive prosecution is a high legal bar to clear. Abrego's lawyers acknowledge this, writing that these motions 'are infrequently made and rarely succeed.' But they insist that 'if there has ever been a case for dismissal on those grounds, this is that case.' They recalled that the criminal case centers on a 2022 car stop from which Abrego was released without charge. The only thing that changed in the intervening years, they wrote, 'was that the government unlawfully renditioned Mr. Abrego to El Salvador, and he challenged that illegal conduct. As a matter of timing, it is clear that it was that lawsuit — and its effects on the government — that prompted the government to reevaluate the 2022 traffic stop and bring this case.' The government will have a chance to respond before the judge overseeing the case in Tennessee weighs in. Before deciding on such motions, judges can order discovery and an evidentiary hearing to assist in their decision. Presumably, the administration doesn't want a formal public airing focused on its motivations, so expect the Justice Department to argue in its forthcoming response that Abrego's motion should be denied without a hearing or discovery. The motion comes ahead of Abrego's potential release from criminal custody on Friday, though the government has signaled its intent to put him back into immigration proceedings, which would move forward in Maryland (where he had been living), separately from the Tennessee criminal case. As for the criminal case, it would be a fitting end for a court to dismiss it based on recognizing the vengeance that's plain for all to see. And though, as Abrego's lawyers noted, such motions are rare, there have been at least two recently, the other coming from McIver, whose charges also came in response to scrutiny of the administration's immigration actions. While we don't yet know whether these latest motions will succeed, if this vengeful administration continues along a similar trajectory in President Donald Trump's second term, such motions may no longer be rare. Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration's legal cases. This article was originally published on
