Cybercrime and the Dark Web - Criminal Justice

Cybercrime and the dark web examines the relationship between the hidden layers of the internet — accessible only through specialized anonymizing software — and the criminal activities that these environments facilitate, concentrate, and in some respects transform. Within Cyber Criminology, the dark web occupies a distinctive analytical position as both a technological infrastructure that enables specific forms of criminal conduct and a social environment with its own norms, governance structures, and community dynamics that shape criminal behavior in ways that the surface web does not. The dark web hosts marketplaces for illicit drugs, stolen data, weapons, counterfeit documents, and hacking tools; forums where cybercriminals exchange techniques and recruit collaborators; platforms for the distribution of child sexual abuse material; and communication channels used by terrorist organizations and extremist groups. Yet the dark web also serves legitimate purposes — protecting the communications of journalists, dissidents, and whistleblowers in authoritarian regimes — creating a persistent tension between security and freedom that complicates policy responses. This article examines the technical architecture of the dark web, the criminal ecosystems it supports, law enforcement operations against dark web crime, and the policy debates surrounding anonymity and criminal exploitation within the broader field of Criminology.

Introduction

The internet that most users experience — websites indexed by search engines, social media platforms, e-commerce sites, news outlets — constitutes the “surface web,” representing a fraction of the total content accessible through internet protocols. Beneath the surface web lies the “deep web,” encompassing content that is not indexed by search engines but is accessible through standard browsers with appropriate credentials — academic databases, private corporate intranets, email accounts, medical records. The “dark web” is a further subset: content hosted on overlay networks that require specialized software to access and that are designed to conceal the identity and location of both the content provider and the user. The Tor network (The Onion Router), originally developed by the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory and now maintained by the nonprofit Tor Project, is the most widely used dark web infrastructure, though alternatives including I2P (Invisible Internet Project) and Freenet provide additional anonymous networking capabilities.

The distinction between these layers matters because the dark web’s technical architecture — specifically its capacity to conceal the identities of participants — creates conditions that are qualitatively different from those on the surface web. On the surface web, law enforcement can typically identify the operators of a website through domain registration records, hosting provider cooperation, and IP address analysis. On the dark web, the routing of traffic through multiple encrypted relays means that neither the user nor the server’s true IP address is exposed, creating a degree of anonymity that facilitates criminal activity while simultaneously protecting legitimate privacy interests. The resulting tension between the dark web’s dual functions — criminal infrastructure and privacy tool — defines the policy challenge and has resisted simple resolution.

The scale of dark web criminal activity, while significant, should not be overstated. Research by Moore and Rid (2016) found that approximately 57 percent of active dark web sites hosted illicit content, but the total volume of dark web traffic remains a tiny fraction of overall internet activity. The dark web’s significance for criminology lies not in its scale but in its character: it concentrates specific forms of criminal activity, enables organizational forms that would be difficult to sustain on the surface web, and creates investigative challenges that push the boundaries of law enforcement capability and legal authority.

Technical Architecture and Anonymity

The Tor Network

Tor provides the primary technical infrastructure for the dark web through a system of “onion routing” in which internet traffic is encrypted in multiple layers and transmitted through a series of volunteer-operated relays before reaching its destination. Each relay in the circuit decrypts one layer of encryption to reveal the next relay in the path, but no single relay knows both the origin and the destination of the traffic. This architecture ensures that an observer monitoring any single point in the network cannot determine both who is communicating and what they are communicating about. Hidden services (now termed “onion services”) — websites hosted within the Tor network and accessible only through Tor-enabled browsers — extend this anonymity to content providers, enabling the operation of websites whose physical location and operator identity are concealed from both users and network observers.

The Tor network was not designed for criminal purposes. Its development was funded by the U.S. government to protect intelligence communications and to provide a censorship-circumvention tool for users in authoritarian regimes. The Tor Project, which maintains the software and network, emphasizes its role in protecting journalists, human rights activists, domestic violence survivors, and ordinary citizens who value privacy. The Tor Browser is used by millions of people worldwide for purposes that have nothing to do with criminal activity — accessing censored content in countries with restrictive internet policies, protecting sensitive communications from corporate or government surveillance, and maintaining privacy during routine browsing. This legitimate user base complicates law enforcement approaches that might seek to restrict or compromise the Tor network, as measures targeting criminal use would equally affect legitimate users.

The security of Tor is not absolute. Researchers have demonstrated traffic correlation attacks in which an adversary controlling both the entry and exit points of a Tor circuit can statistically link the traffic to specific users. The FBI and other agencies have exploited vulnerabilities in the Tor Browser — essentially flaws in the Firefox-based browser rather than in the Tor protocol itself — to identify users of dark web services. The operation against the Freedom Hosting service in 2013, in which the FBI deployed a browser exploit to identify users of dark web child exploitation sites, demonstrated that technical anonymity can be defeated under certain conditions. However, these techniques are resource-intensive, target-specific, and dependent on the discovery of exploitable vulnerabilities, meaning that the Tor network continues to provide effective anonymity for the vast majority of its users.

Alternative Dark Web Platforms

While Tor dominates the dark web landscape, alternative anonymity networks provide additional infrastructure for criminal and privacy-seeking activity. I2P (the Invisible Internet Project) uses a different routing architecture than Tor — a distributed peer-to-peer network in which all participants route traffic for each other, rather than relying on a set of dedicated relay nodes. I2P’s architecture provides stronger anonymity for services hosted within the network (termed “eepsites”) and has been adopted by some criminal forums and marketplaces that seek to diversify away from Tor’s infrastructure, which has been the primary target of law enforcement operations.

Freenet, developed by Ian Clarke in the early 2000s, provides a censorship-resistant distributed data store in which content is distributed across participating nodes and persists without the continued involvement of the original publisher. Freenet’s architecture makes content removal effectively impossible once it has been inserted into the network — a feature that serves both the legitimate function of censorship resistance and the illegitimate function of enabling the persistent distribution of illegal content, particularly child sexual abuse material. The immutability of Freenet’s content model creates a specific criminal justice challenge that differs from that posed by Tor hidden services, which can be taken offline when their infrastructure is identified and seized.

Encrypted messaging platforms — including Signal, Telegram (particularly its “secret chat” and channel functions), and various purpose-built encrypted communication tools — serve as dark web-adjacent infrastructure that enables criminal coordination without necessarily involving hidden web services. The migration of some criminal marketplace activity from dedicated dark web platforms to Telegram channels and encrypted group chats represents an evolutionary trend in which the anonymity and communication functions of the dark web are partially disaggregated, with some functions moving to platforms that are not technically part of the dark web but that provide comparable operational security.

Criminal Ecosystems on the Dark Web

Marketplaces and Their Evolution

Dark web marketplaces — multi-vendor platforms for the sale of illicit goods and services — represent the most visible and economically significant form of dark web criminal activity. The Silk Road, launched by Ross Ulbricht in February 2011 and seized by the FBI in October 2013, established the template: a Tor-hosted platform combining product listings, vendor ratings, escrow payment systems, and cryptocurrency transactions to create an e-commerce experience for illegal goods. Christin’s (2013) measurement study of the Silk Road documented approximately 13,000 product listings, predominantly drugs, with estimated monthly revenue of approximately $1.2 million — figures that, while modest by the standards of the broader drug trade, demonstrated the viability of the cryptomarket model.

The post-Silk Road marketplace ecosystem has been characterized by continuous creation, competition, and destruction. Major successor markets — including Silk Road 2.0, Evolution, Agora, AlphaBay, Hansa, Dream Market, Wall Street Market, and dozens of others — have risen and fallen through a combination of law enforcement takedowns, exit scams (in which administrators abscond with escrowed funds), and competitive displacement. AlphaBay, which operated from December 2014 to July 2017, grew to become the largest dark web marketplace in history before its seizure by the FBI in Operation Bayonet, with over 350,000 product listings at the time of its closure. The coordinated nature of Operation Bayonet — in which Dutch police had covertly operated the Hansa marketplace for a month before AlphaBay’s closure, capturing the migration of AlphaBay users to what they believed was a secure alternative — represented a significant evolution in law enforcement sophistication.

The product offerings on dark web marketplaces extend beyond drugs, though drugs consistently dominate sales volume. Stolen data — credit card numbers, login credentials, identity documents, medical records — is traded on dedicated fraud marketplaces and within general-purpose markets. Hacking tools, malware, and cybercrime services are available through specialized vendors. Counterfeit currency, fraudulent identity documents, and weapons are listed on some platforms, though weapons sales represent a small and contested category — some marketplaces explicitly prohibit weapons listings, reflecting the operators’ risk calculus that weapons sales attract disproportionate law enforcement attention relative to their revenue contribution.

Forums, Communication, and Criminal Networking

Beyond marketplaces, the dark web hosts forums and communication platforms that serve as the social infrastructure of criminal communities. These forums function as spaces for knowledge sharing, reputation building, recruitment, and coordination — activities that are essential to the organizational dynamics of cybercrime but that do not involve direct commercial transactions. Holt (2013) documented how dark web forums create subcultural environments in which criminal expertise is transmitted through tutorials, mentorship, and collaborative problem-solving, functioning as criminal learning communities that lower the barrier to entry for new participants.

The social dynamics of dark web forums reveal the importance of trust and reputation in anonymous criminal environments. Forum participants build reputations through consistent contributions, vouching by established members, and the accumulation of transaction feedback that signals reliability. The reputation capital that a vendor or service provider builds on a dark web forum represents a genuine economic asset — vendors with strong reputations command premium prices and attract more customers — creating incentives for reliable behavior that partially substitute for the legal enforcement of contracts that is unavailable in criminal markets. Décary-Hétu and Dupont (2012) applied social network analysis to dark web forum interactions and found that network position — particularly bridging roles that connect different clusters of participants — predicted both criminal productivity and longevity, suggesting that social capital functions similarly in criminal and legitimate organizational contexts.

The governance of dark web forums and marketplaces involves sophisticated rule systems, moderation practices, and dispute resolution mechanisms. Marketplace administrators establish and enforce rules governing product listings (some prohibit weapons, child exploitation material, or targeted attacks), vendor conduct (requiring escrow use, establishing minimum quality standards), and community behavior (prohibiting doxxing, scamming, or harassment of other members). Violations of these rules are sanctioned through account suspension, reputation penalties, or ban — governance mechanisms that parallel those of legitimate online communities and that maintain the operational environment necessary for sustained commercial activity.

Law Enforcement Operations

Investigation Techniques and Major Operations

Law enforcement operations against dark web criminal activity employ a combination of technical exploitation, undercover investigation, cryptocurrency analysis, and traditional investigative techniques adapted for anonymous digital environments. The FBI, HSI, DEA, and their international counterparts have developed specialized capabilities for each of these approaches, and the most successful operations typically combine multiple techniques to overcome the anonymity protections that the dark web provides.

Technical exploitation — identifying and exploiting vulnerabilities in dark web infrastructure or in the software used to access it — has produced several of the most significant investigative breakthroughs. The FBI’s deployment of a Network Investigative Technique (NIT) — essentially a browser exploit that revealed the true IP addresses of users accessing a compromised dark web service — was instrumental in the investigation of child exploitation sites including Playpen, which was briefly operated by the FBI in 2015 to gather identifying information on users. The use of NITs has generated significant legal controversy, with defense attorneys challenging the constitutionality of the warrants authorizing their deployment and questioning whether a single warrant can authorize the search of computers in hundreds of judicial districts. The Supreme Court has not directly addressed the constitutionality of NITs, though Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure was amended in 2016 to explicitly authorize judges to issue warrants for remote access searches in cases involving anonymized computers.

Covert marketplace operations — in which law enforcement agencies infiltrate or assume control of dark web platforms — represent the most operationally complex investigation technique. Operation Bayonet’s covert operation of Hansa Market by Dutch National Police demonstrated the intelligence value of this approach: during the month of covert operation, investigators collected shipping addresses, cryptocurrency transactions, passwords, and communications from thousands of users, generating investigative leads that resulted in arrests across multiple countries. The FBI’s operation of the Playpen child exploitation site for thirteen days, while generating thousands of investigative leads, attracted fierce criticism from civil liberties organizations and some federal judges who questioned whether the government’s continued operation of a site distributing child sexual abuse material was justified by its investigative value.

Cryptocurrency analysis has become an essential investigative tool as dark web transactions have moved from Bitcoin — whose public blockchain provides a traceable, if pseudonymous, transaction record — to privacy-focused alternatives. The IRS Criminal Investigation division’s cryptocurrency analysis capabilities played a central role in identifying the operator of the Welcome to Video child exploitation marketplace and in tracing funds from various dark web operations. The analytical tools developed by Chainalysis, Elliptic, and other firms enable investigators to visualize transaction flows, cluster related addresses, and identify points where cryptocurrency enters or exits regulated exchanges where identity information may be available. The effectiveness of these tools against privacy coins such as Monero — which employ cryptographic techniques specifically designed to prevent transaction tracing — remains an active area of both technical research and law enforcement capability development.

Disruption Strategies and Their Limitations

Law enforcement strategy against dark web crime has evolved from targeted takedowns of individual marketplaces toward broader disruption strategies that target the ecosystem’s enabling infrastructure. The seizure of cryptocurrency, the prosecution of marketplace administrators, the disruption of bulletproof hosting services, and the takedown of mixing services and money laundering platforms all aim to degrade the infrastructure on which dark web criminal activity depends. Operation SpecTor (2023), coordinated across nine countries, resulted in 288 arrests and the seizure of $53.4 million, demonstrating the scale of resources that international coalitions now deploy against dark web crime.

The limitations of the disruption approach are well-documented. The “whack-a-mole” dynamic — in which new marketplaces emerge rapidly to replace those that are taken down — means that marketplace seizures produce temporary disruptions rather than lasting supply reduction. Décary-Hétu and Giommoni (2017) found that major law enforcement operations against dark web marketplaces were followed by recovery periods of weeks to months, after which transaction volumes returned to pre-disruption levels as activity migrated to competing platforms. The resilience of the dark web criminal ecosystem reflects its distributed, market-based organizational structure: because no single entity controls the ecosystem, the removal of any individual component — a marketplace, a vendor, a hosting provider — does not disable the system.

However, disruption operations impose real costs on dark web participants that should not be discounted. Users lose escrowed funds when marketplaces are seized. Vendors lose accumulated reputation capital that may have taken months to build. The uncertainty created by serial takedowns increases the perceived risk of participation, potentially deterring marginal actors. And the intelligence gathered during covert operations and marketplace seizures generates investigative leads that result in prosecutions long after the initial operation concludes. The cumulative effect of sustained disruption — rather than the impact of any single operation — represents the most plausible mechanism through which law enforcement can constrain dark web criminal activity.

The Dark Web Economy

Market Structure and Pricing

The economics of dark web marketplaces reveal market structures that combine features of legitimate e-commerce with dynamics unique to illegal markets operating under conditions of anonymity. Competition among vendors drives prices toward levels that reflect production costs, shipping risk, and the quality premiums commanded by vendors with strong reputations. Aldridge and Décary-Hétu (2016) found that dark web drug prices were generally lower than street prices for the same substances, reflecting the reduced transaction costs and increased competition that the marketplace model enables. However, the relationship between dark web and street prices varies by substance, quantity, and geographic market, with some products (particularly those sourced from domestic vendors) showing minimal price differences while others (imported substances available in concentrated forms) show substantial discounts.

The market structure of dark web commerce is characterized by significant concentration among a relatively small number of high-volume vendors. Studies of marketplace transaction data consistently find that a small percentage of vendors account for a disproportionate share of total revenue — a pattern consistent with the power-law distributions observed in many economic systems. This concentration reflects the reputation advantages that successful vendors accumulate: buyers prefer vendors with established track records, creating a self-reinforcing dynamic in which successful vendors attract more business, generate more reviews, and further strengthen their competitive position. The implication for law enforcement is that targeting high-volume vendors may produce disproportionate disruption relative to the number of individuals prosecuted.

The role of trust in dark web market dynamics cannot be overstated. In the absence of legal contract enforcement, market participants depend on reputation systems, escrow mechanisms, and community norms to manage the risks of transacting with anonymous counterparties. The sophistication of these trust mechanisms has evolved substantially since the Silk Road era: multi-signature escrow reduces administrator theft risk, vendor verification processes screen out low-quality sellers, and dispute resolution systems provide adjudication of transaction conflicts. The development of these institutional features reflects a broader pattern in which illegal markets evolve governance mechanisms that substitute for the legal infrastructure available to legitimate commerce.

Cryptocurrency and Financial Infrastructure

Cryptocurrency provides the financial infrastructure of the dark web economy, enabling pseudonymous transactions that are more difficult to trace than conventional payment methods. Bitcoin dominated dark web transactions during the Silk Road era and remains widely used, but its limitations — particularly the public and traceable nature of its blockchain — have driven partial migration to privacy-focused alternatives. Monero, which employs ring signatures, stealth addresses, and confidential transactions to obscure sender, receiver, and amount information, has been adopted by several major marketplaces and is increasingly preferred by vendors seeking enhanced financial privacy.

The financial infrastructure of the dark web extends beyond simple buyer-vendor transactions to encompass a complex ecosystem of conversion, mixing, and laundering services. Cryptocurrency mixers and tumblers aggregate transactions from multiple users and redistribute them to obscure the connection between input and output addresses. Decentralized exchanges enable cryptocurrency trading without centralized identity verification. Over-the-counter (OTC) brokers facilitate large-volume cryptocurrency-to-fiat conversion for criminal proceeds. Each of these services represents a specialized function within the dark web financial ecosystem, and the disruption of any one service forces participants to seek alternatives rather than abandoning cryptocurrency-based transactions.

Law enforcement has achieved significant successes in disrupting dark web financial infrastructure, including the Treasury Department’s sanctioning of cryptocurrency mixers (Tornado Cash, Blender.io), the prosecution of unlicensed money transmission businesses, and the seizure of cryptocurrency from dark web operations. The FBI’s recovery of approximately $2.3 million from the Colonial Pipeline ransom through blockchain analysis demonstrated that cryptocurrency anonymity can be defeated under favorable analytical conditions. However, the continuous development of privacy-enhancing technologies — and the decentralized, open-source nature of many cryptocurrency tools — ensures that the contest between financial anonymity and investigative tracing will continue without definitive resolution.

Policy Debates

Anonymity, Privacy, and Criminal Exploitation

The central policy question surrounding the dark web is how to address its criminal exploitation without destroying the legitimate privacy functions that the same technology provides. The Tor network protects the communications of journalists in countries where press freedom is restricted, enables whistleblowers to communicate with news organizations without revealing their identities, and provides privacy for domestic violence survivors, political dissidents, and ordinary citizens who value anonymous browsing. Any policy measure that degrades the anonymity of the Tor network — mandatory backdoors, traffic analysis requirements, restrictions on encryption — would affect these legitimate users alongside criminal ones.

The debate has produced two broadly opposing positions. Law enforcement advocates argue that the dark web’s criminal exploitation has reached a scale that demands more aggressive technical and regulatory intervention, including the development of capabilities to deanonymize dark web users and the potential regulation or restriction of anonymizing technologies. The FBI and other agencies have invested in deanonymization research and have deployed technical exploits against dark web infrastructure, but have generally stopped short of advocating for the prohibition or regulatory restriction of anonymity tools — a position that reflects both constitutional constraints and the recognition that Tor’s legitimate functions serve U.S. foreign policy interests.

Privacy advocates and technologists argue that the dark web’s criminal dimension, while serious, does not justify measures that would compromise the privacy of millions of legitimate users. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Tor Project, and academic researchers have emphasized that strong anonymity tools are essential for the protection of human rights in an era of pervasive digital surveillance, and that weakening these tools would cause harm to vulnerable populations that exceeds the law enforcement benefits. The debate parallels the broader encryption controversy and reflects a fundamental tension in digital policy between security and liberty that admits no easy resolution.

Regulation and Platform Responsibility

The question of whether and how dark web infrastructure providers should be held responsible for criminal activity on their networks has generated policy proposals ranging from criminal liability for platform operators to regulatory requirements for content moderation on anonymous services. The prosecution of Silk Road’s Ulbricht, AlphaBay’s Alexandre Cazes, and other marketplace administrators under drug trafficking, money laundering, and criminal enterprise statutes establishes that operating a dark web marketplace constitutes criminal conduct. However, proposals to extend liability to the operators of the underlying infrastructure — the Tor network itself, relay operators, or anonymity tool developers — raise serious First Amendment and policy concerns.

The comparison to common carrier liability is instructive but imperfect. Telecommunications carriers are generally not held liable for criminal use of their networks because they provide a neutral communication service without knowledge of specific criminal activity. The Tor Project occupies a similar position — it provides anonymity infrastructure that is used for both lawful and unlawful purposes and has no direct knowledge of or control over specific content transmitted through the network. However, unlike telecommunications carriers, the Tor Project’s specific design purpose includes the concealment of user identity, and its technology is deployed with the knowledge that anonymity will be used for criminal as well as legitimate purposes. The appropriate legal framework for this unique technological context remains unsettled, and the resolution will have significant implications for both criminal justice and digital rights.

Conclusion

The dark web represents a distinctive criminal environment whose technical architecture creates conditions — anonymity, global reach, market-based coordination — that facilitate specific forms of criminal activity while simultaneously serving legitimate privacy functions that democratic societies value. The criminal ecosystems that have developed on the dark web — marketplaces, forums, financial infrastructure — demonstrate sophisticated governance, trust, and economic mechanisms that parallel those of legitimate markets and that resist law enforcement disruption through their distributed and resilient organizational structures. Law enforcement has achieved significant operational successes through technical exploitation, covert operations, cryptocurrency analysis, and international cooperation, but the persistent regeneration of dark web criminal infrastructure following each disruption operation illustrates the limits of enforcement-focused approaches.

The policy challenge is to develop responses that effectively target the most harmful dark web criminal activity — child exploitation, fentanyl distribution, ransomware infrastructure, terrorist communications — while preserving the anonymity protections that serve journalists, dissidents, whistleblowers, and privacy-seeking citizens. This challenge requires sustained investment in investigative capability, international cooperation, and the development of legal frameworks that are calibrated to the distinctive features of anonymous digital environments — a policy task that is as much about defining the boundaries of acceptable anonymity in democratic societies as it is about enforcing criminal law.

References

Aldridge, J., & Décary-Hétu, D. (2016). Hidden wholesale: The drug diffusing capacity of online drug cryptomarkets. International Journal of Drug Policy, 35, 7–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.04.020
Bartlett, J. (2015). The dark net: Inside the digital underworld. Melville House.
Chainalysis. (2024). The 2024 crypto crime report. https://www.chainalysis.com/blog/crypto-crime-2024/
Christin, N. (2013). Traveling the Silk Road: A measurement analysis of a large anonymous online marketplace. Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on World Wide Web (pp. 213–224). https://doi.org/10.1145/2488388.2488408
Décary-Hétu, D., & Dupont, B. (2012). The social network of hackers. Global Crime, 13(3), 160–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/17440572.2012.702523
Décary-Hétu, D., & Giommoni, L. (2017). Do police crackdowns disrupt drug cryptomarkets? Crime, Law and Social Change, 67(1), 55–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-016-9644-4
Europol. (2023). International operation SpecTor results. Press release.
Greenberg, A. (2019). Sandworm: A new era of cyberwar and the hunt for the Kremlin’s most dangerous hackers. Doubleday.
Holt, T. J. (2013). Examining the forces shaping cybercrime markets online. Social Science Computer Review, 31(2), 165–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439312452998
Holt, T. J., & Bossler, A. M. (2016). Cybercrime in progress: Theory and prevention of technology-enabled offenses. Routledge.
Jardine, E. (2015). The dark web dilemma: Tor, anonymity and online policing. Global Commission on Internet Governance Paper Series, No. 21. Centre for International Governance Innovation.
Lusthaus, J. (2018). Industry of anonymity: Inside the business of cybercrime. Harvard University Press.
Martin, J. (2014). Drugs on the dark net: How cryptomarkets are transforming the global trade in illicit drugs. Palgrave Macmillan.
Moore, D., & Rid, T. (2016). Cryptopolitik and the darknet. Survival, 58(1), 7–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2016.1142085
Munksgaard, R., & Demant, J. (2016). Mixing politics and crime — the prevalence and decline of political discourse on the cryptomarket. International Journal of Drug Policy, 35, 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.04.021
Soska, K., & Christin, N. (2015). Measuring the longitudinal evolution of the online anonymous marketplace ecosystem. Proceedings of the 24th USENIX Security Symposium (pp. 33–48).
Tor Project. (2024). Tor: Overview. https://www.torproject.org/about/overview.html
U.S. Department of Justice. (2013). Ross William Ulbricht charged in billion-dollar Silk Road website takedown. Press release.
U.S. Department of Justice. (2017). AlphaBay, the largest online ‘dark market,’ shut down. Press release.
Wall, D. S. (2007). Cybercrime: The transformation of crime in the information age. Polity Press.
Yar, M., & Steinmetz, K. F. (2019). Cybercrime and society (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Related Articles