[General Topics] Mechcondrid:
wow.....

so i'm not sure which is the case and which is worse, that you're a supposed attorney and miss-read the previous statements or that your a supposed attorney and don't understand the inherent difference of intent in 1029 versus what is being talked about here.

i don't mean offense by this, just very, VERY surprised at your whole statement here.

fair bit to unpack here to bear with it for a bit;

just about every causal line in 1029 is prefaced by "knowingly and with intent to defraud..."

obviously your clients intended to use stolen mobile devices and use them for some purpose, either that's cloning another IMEI or simply changing the IMEI to activate them on a new service line.

both ARE illegal acts since the originating device was a stolen device, this in turn then brings into effect 1029 (and also 18 U.S.C. § 2315). since they likely knew it was stolen and even if they used the excuse that they didn't know, after finding out it was blacklisted they went through the further trouble of changing the IMEIs instead of doing the right thing and reporting the devices and the seller which then further calls into question the legality of the means they came into possession of the devices as well as pointing more toward their intent to defraud the cellular carrier.

both those factors i'm sure played a HEAVY role in their convictions.

in a scenario where a legal owner of a device, that they purchased themselves wants to change the IMEI, they can (in the usa), one instance of a LEGAL reason to do so is to prevent undisclosed throttling by the cellular carrier and this is done quite regularly by carriers to varying degrees and regions.

for instance, they will sell you 50gb of hotspot usage but then drastically throttle your connection speeds of the devices behind that hotspot, all the while never disclosing that fact to the customer, often even after being confronted on the subject they will even state that they only throttle in times of high congestion (an easily disproved excuse, if the speed is significantly slower on a tethered device while the cellular device itself has massively better speeds at all times then it's not congestion)

the customer has paid for hotspot usage, not hotspot usage at a reduced speed. (though some are disclosed, if only in the contract text itself, the customer would need to check this first)

changing the IMEI of a hotspot to that of say, a tablet that the person also owns for instance, would bypass that throttling and allow the customer to get the speeds that they have in fact paid for.

this is in fact what this type of modification is most commonly used for.

in this scenario there is no defrauding taking place, the customer is paying for a service that they are using on hardware that they have legally purchased and are taking actions simply to get what they have paid for and what the carrier agreed to provide them per the subscriber contract, neither 18 U.S.C. §1029 or 18 U.S.C. §2315 would come into effect or question, thus the action is perfectly legal.

since as i'm sure you're aware, in the USA, unless there is a law that SPECIFICALLY states an action is illegal, then said action is LEGAL.

the law is restrictive not permissive; people don't need permission to go outside and take a walk down the road, it is not forbidden by law therefore it is legal.

as others have said, most criminals will just buy burner $50 phones from walmart rather than go through all this trouble to change the imei.