Charlotte Data Analyst Sentenced to 24 Months for $2.5M Cyber Extortion Scheme

Cameron Curry was ordered to serve two years in prison for attempting to extort an international technology company using stolen sensitive files.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 20, 2026, 10:25 a.m. ET

According to official court records from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of North Carolina, 27-year-old Cameron Curry of Charlotte was on August 13, 2026, to 24 months in prison followed by one year of supervised release. U.S. Attorney Russ Ferguson announced the sentencing. In March 2026, a federal jury convicted Curry of six counts of transmitting or willfully causing interstate communications with the intent to extort a victim company. Official court documents show that Curry worked for approximately six months as a contracted data analyst for a Washington, D.C.-based international technology company, granting him access to personnel files and corporate information. After learning his contract would not be renewed, Curry initiated the extortion scheme. From December 11, 2023, to January 24, 2024, operating under the online moniker "Loot," Curry sent over 60 email messages to executives and employees threatening to release sensitive corporate data and personally identifiable employee information unless he received $2.5 million dollars in cryptocurrency. On January 24, 2024, the FBI executed a search warrant at Curry's residence and seized electronic devices, which forensic analysis linked to the "Loot" alias. The investigation was conducted by the FBI Washington Field Office with assistance from the FBI Charlotte Field Office, and the case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew Warren and Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Diane Lucas.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

Version 120 Aug 2026, 14:25current
First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.