US Indictment Says DCI Group Paid Amit Forlit $125,000 a Month to Hack Exxon Critics
Updated
Updated · The Guardian · Jul 15
US Indictment Says DCI Group Paid Amit Forlit $125,000 a Month to Hack Exxon Critics
2 articles · Updated · The Guardian · Jul 15
Summary
A newly unsealed US indictment alleges DCI Group hired Israeli investigator Amit Forlit to target climate activists and other ExxonMobil critics in 2016 and 2017.
Court papers say the lobbying firm sought help after climate investigations hit Exxon, sending Forlit a memo about going "on offense" and approving a $125,000 monthly intelligence project.
Prosecutors allege Forlit then used Aviram Azari and hackers in India to breach accounts, with stolen material later reaching the lobbying firm and appearing in lobbying work and court filings tied to Exxon.
The Justice Department has confirmed more than 100 victims were successfully hacked; DCI and Exxon deny involvement, and neither has been accused of wrongdoing by US authorities.
Forlit has pleaded not guilty and could face up to 45 years in prison, while victims say the case may finally show who conceived, directed and financed the decade-old operation.
Will the Forlit trial expose a secret playbook of corporate espionage against public interest groups?
As cybercrime-for-hire grows, can international law stop corporations from targeting activists across borders?
When corporations hire lobbyists, where does legal opposition research end and criminal conspiracy begin?
The Forlit Indictment: How a Global Hack-for-Hire Scheme Targeted Climate Activists and Shook ExxonMobil’s Legal Defense
Overview
In July 2026, Amit Forlit stands trial in the U.S. after being indicted as the leader of a global cybercriminal network. The indictment reveals that Forlit and his international co-conspirators targeted climate activists through a sophisticated hacking operation. Prosecutors allege the main goal was to gather information for use in lobbying and legal battles, especially as lawsuits against oil companies for climate damages surged. This case highlights the intersection of cyber-espionage, corporate interests, and climate litigation, raising urgent questions about accountability and the tactics used to influence public discourse and legal outcomes.