Adams' followers often used the slogan, "Do It For State!" Adams tried to purchase the Internet domain "doitforstate.com" from a Cedar Rapids resident who had registered the domain with GoDaddy.com. Between 2015 and 2017, Adams repeatedly tried to obtain "doitforstate.com", but the owner of the domain would not sell it. Adams also threatened one of the domain owner's friends with "gun emojis" after the friend used the domain to promote concerts.
In June 2017, Adams enlisted his cousin, Sherman Hopkins, Jr., to break into the domain owner's home and force him at gunpoint to transfer doitforstate.com to Adams. Hopkins was a convicted felon who lived in a homeless shelter at the time.
On June 21, 2017, Adams drove Hopkins to the domain owner's house and provided Hopkins with a demand note, which contained instructions for transferring the domain to Adams' GoDaddy account. When Hopkins entered the victim's home in Cedar Rapids, he was carrying a cellular telephone, a stolen gun, a taser, and he was wearing a hat, pantyhose on his head, and dark sunglasses on his face.
The victim was upstairs and heard Hopkins enter the home. From the top of a staircase, the victim saw Hopkins with the gun on the first floor. Hopkins shouted at the victim, who then ran into an upstairs bedroom and shut the door, leaning up against the door to stop Hopkins from entering. Hopkins went upstairs and kicked the door open.
Hopkins grabbed the victim by the arm and demanded to know where he kept his computer. When the victim told Hopkins that he kept his computer in his home office, Hopkins forcibly moved the victim to the office. Hopkins ordered the victim to turn on his computer and connect to the Internet. Hopkins pulled out Adams' demand note, which contained a series of directions on how to change an Internet domain name from the domain owner's GoDaddy account to one of Adams' GoDaddy accounts.
Hopkins put the firearm against the victim's head and ordered him to follow the directions on the demand note. Hopkins then pistol whipped the victim several times in the head. Fearing for his life, the victim quickly turned to move the gun away from his head. The victim then managed to gain control of the gun, but during the struggle, he was shot in the leg. The victim shot Hopkins multiple times in the chest. He then contacted law enforcement.
[O]LOBIA was responsible for managing the third party vendors who advertised ShareBuilder's services. Those vendors were paid on a "bounty system." ShareBuilder paid Tega Creative $40-$55 per account that was opened after a customer came to ShareBuilder via Tega Creative's advertisement. Beginning in about 2008, OLOBIA executed a scheme to inflate the numbers of accounts that were attributable to Tega Creative. OLOBIA manipulated data in ShareBuilder's computer system to vastly inflate the number of account openings attributable to Tega Creative's marketing, and then approved invoices issued by Tega Creative that were based on the inflated numbers. For example in 2007, Tega Creative was credited with about 2,000 account openings. In 2008, as a result of the fraud, Tega Creative with credited with 10,000 account openings. OLOBIA was secretly paid about one-third of the gross monthly payment from ShareBuilder to Tega Creative.The scheme was uncovered when OLOBIA left ShareBuilder, and other employees tried to reconcile the number of accounts attributed to Tega Creative. In January 2014, OLOBIA prepared a spreadsheet that tried to further the fraud and reconcile the accounts. OLOBIA provided the spreadsheet to an individual at Tega Creative who emailed it on to ShareBuilder. However, the spreadsheet did not end the company's investigation and the case was referred to law enforcement.
[F]rom approximately July 2015 until May 2017, Prosper excluded certain non-performing charged off loans from its calculation of annualized net returns that it reported to investors. The order finds that, as a result, Prosper reported overstated annualized net returns to more than 30,000 investors on individual account pages on Prosper's website and in emails soliciting additional investments from investors. Many investors decided to make additional investments based on the overstated annualized net returns. The order also finds that Prosper failed to identify and correct the error despite Prosper's knowledge that it no longer understood how annualized net returns were calculated and despite investor complaints about the calculation.