Have there been notable prosecutions or convictions in InfraGard-related stalking cases?
Executive summary
Public records and mainstream prosecutions demonstrate that stalking and cyberstalking are prosecuted vigorously by federal authorities, but there is no clear, publicly documented criminal prosecution or conviction that ties InfraGard as an organization to an organized “gang‑stalking” campaign; allegations that InfraGard chapters participate in coordinated stalking appear in activist and conspiracy‑oriented outlets and in FOIA litigation seeking records, rather than in criminal case law or Department of Justice press releases [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. What the federal record actually contains about InfraGard
InfraGard is an FBI public–private partnership described in official FBI materials as a membership program for information‑sharing between the FBI and the private sector; the FBI publishes fact sheets and outreach stories about InfraGard as an industry partnership [1] [5]. The federal materials do not, in the documents provided here, advertise or document InfraGard chapters as criminal enterprises or as defendants in stalking prosecutions; instead, InfraGard appears in official materials as a law‑enforcement liaison program [1] [5].
2. Where InfraGard shows up in litigation and public complaints
InfraGard surfaces in litigation and public records as a subject of demand letters, FOIA requests, and civil complaints by people who say they are victims of “gang stalking”; for example, a plaintiff in Eastern District of New York litigation sought FBI records related to “gang stalking” and explicitly listed InfraGard among groups in its FOIA requests and court filings [2]. Those documents show that InfraGard is named by claimants seeking proof of coordinated targeting, but naming in FOIA or civil filings is not the same as criminal charges or convictions against the organization [2].
3. The landscape of stalking prosecutions — real cases, different facts
There are robust examples of federal prosecutions for cyberstalking and organized harassment — including a high‑profile 2024 cyberstalking prosecution and 9‑year federal sentence publicized by the Department of Justice and the U.S. Secret Service — but that case involved an individual using technical means to harass former roommates and associates and does not implicate InfraGard or its chapters [6] [7]. Those DOJ releases demonstrate that when evidence exists, authorities will pursue and publicize convictions for stalking and cyberstalking, which is different from proving a coordinated campaign run through a membership organization.
4. Proliferation of allegations online and the evidentiary gap
A number of websites, blogs, petitions and conspiracy forums allege that InfraGard or its members run or facilitate “gang stalking,” with detailed personal accounts and accusations against local chapters [3] [4] [8] [9] [10]. These sources are important for understanding claims and social movements, but they are primarily advocacy or conspiratorial in nature and do not, in the materials provided, cite criminal indictments, court judgments, or law‑enforcement findings that name InfraGard as a party to criminal stalking conspiracies [3] [4].
5. Two plausible interpretations and the hidden agendas to watch
One plausible interpretation is that credible prosecutions tie to individuals who commit stalking or cyberstalking and are prosecuted under federal statutes — evidence exists for those prosecutions [6] [7] — while allegations that a national FBI partnership like InfraGard runs an organized stalking apparatus rest on testimonial, FOIA, and conspiratorial sources rather than on criminal convictions [2] [3] [4]. Observers should note agendas on both sides: advocacy sites and petitioners have incentives to amplify perceived victim narratives and link them to high‑profile institutions [3] [10], while law‑enforcement fact sheets and press releases aim to preserve the legitimacy of partnerships like InfraGard and therefore will not foreground unproven accusations [5] [1].
6. Bottom line for accountability and further proof
Based on the reporting and public documents available in this collection, there are notable and public federal prosecutions for stalking and cyberstalking, but there are no publicly documented criminal prosecutions or convictions that establish InfraGard as an organizational perpetrator of coordinated “gang‑stalking”; InfraGard appears in FOIA requests and on conspiracy/advocacy sites as an accused party, but that corpus lacks the court judgments or DOJ indictments that would demonstrate proven criminality [2] [3] [4] [6] [7] [1]. If prosecutors bring cases that allege institutional coordination involving InfraGard in the future, those filings and press releases would be the necessary evidence to move beyond allegation to conviction.