What happened in the “Greggy’s Cult” indictment — charges, penalties, and why you need a strong federal defense attorney like Matthew Galluzzo

View Post

Federal prosecutors in Brooklyn unsealed a disturbing indictment on December 2, 2025, charging five men they say led an online group known as “Greggy’s Cult.” According to the Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York, the group allegedly used Discord servers and online gaming platforms to find and coerce victims — including children — into sexually explicit conduct, captured the conduct on video, distributed the material, extorted victims, and even encouraged self-harm. Four defendants were arrested around the country and one defendant is in custody in another matter. An indictment is an allegation; every defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Department of Justice+1

What the indictment charges

The unsealed charging documents (and related government filings) show the defendants are collectively charged with multiple serious federal offenses, including:

• A child-exploitation-enterprise charge (18 U.S.C. § 2252A(g)), which targets organized networks that produce and traffic in child sexual-abuse material.
• Conspiracy to produce child pornography and related counts under 18 U.S.C. § 2251 (sexual exploitation of children).
• Conspiracy to receive and distribute child pornography under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(2), 2252(b)(1).
• Conspiracy to communicate interstate threats (18 U.S.C. § 875(d)) and other ancillary counts such as access with intent to view child pornography (18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B)).

Government descriptions allege the group coerced minors (some as young as 11) to perform degrading acts on camera, recorded or captured screenshots/screen-recordings, shared those materials on Discord servers, used malware and doxxing for extortion, and encouraged victims to harm themselves. The case was brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, the DOJ initiative targeting online child exploitation.

Potential penalties — why prosecutors described the exposure as severe

Federal statutes for child-exploitation and child-pornography offenses carry heavy penalties and — in some instances — mandatory minimums:

• Child exploitation enterprise (18 U.S.C. § 2252A(g)): Congress created this enhanced offense for organized enterprises that traffic in child sexual-abuse material. Conviction carries a statutory minimum of 20 years in prison and a possible sentence of life imprisonment.
• Distribution/receipt of child pornography (18 U.S.C. § 2252/2252A): Many distribution and receipt offenses carry mandatory minimums (often 5 years) and can expose defendants to decades behind bars depending on the specific statutory subsection, whether minors were under a certain age, whether production is alleged, and whether there are prior convictions. Sentences are also affected by aggravating factors (sadistic content, pre-pubescent victims, pattern of abuse) and by sentencing guidelines enhancements.
• Production/sexual exploitation of a minor (18 U.S.C. § 2251): Production offenses are among the most serious federal child-sex offenses and can result in decades in prison, particularly when they involve pre-pubescent victims or aggravated circumstances. Sentencing results vary with the statutory subsection and guideline calculations, but exposure is substantial.

Because several of the counts carry statutory minimums and because the alleged conduct involves multiple victims (including pre-pubescent children), federal prosecutors successfully urged the court to presume detention pending trial; DOJ filings describe the defendants’ “substantial sentencing exposure” and the danger the government says they pose. Department of Justice

The practical realities in cases like this

These prosecutions typically rely heavily on digital evidence — device images, chat logs, IP and geolocation data, server metadata, screenshots/screen recordings, and forensic extractions — and on victim and witness testimony. The government often has broad investigative resources and aggressive pretrial detention positions in cases involving minor victims. But the presence of digital evidence does not mean conviction is inevitable: authentication, chain of custody, authorship, entrapment or inducement defenses, constitutional challenges to searches and seizures, and the government’s burden on conspiracy allegations all create avenues for defense. Reporting and local outlets have been covering the arrests and providing background on how the alleged networks operated online.

Why you should consider an experienced federal defender like Matthew Galluzzo

If you or a loved one has been arrested or charged in a federal child-exploitation or related case — especially in the Eastern District of New York — you need counsel who:

• Understands how sex crimes prosecutors develop and build cases. Matthew Galluzzo is a former prosecutor in the Manhattan Sex Crimes Unit, who used to build and present cases against people accused of sex crimes like trafficking and child exploitation. As a defense attorney, he has used this experience to dismantle cases against his client, including pre-trial dismissals and acquittals at trial in multiple state and federal sex crimes jury trials.
• Is experienced with digital-evidence forensics and discovery fights. These cases turn on device extractions, metadata, and online identities. Challenging the scope or method of a search, demanding complete forensic reports, or litigating authentication can be case-decisive.
• Knows how to litigate pretrial motions that matter. Motions to suppress, motions for Brady material, and targeted legal challenges to elements of the charged conspiracies can narrow or even defeat the government’s case.
• Can build mitigation for sentencing and negotiate intelligently if resolution is appropriate. When exposure includes mandatory minimums or guideline-driven decades, strategic plea negotiations and strong mitigation work can materially affect outcomes.
• Puts victims and client safety first while protecting constitutional rights. These matters involve real human harm and strong public interest — but constitutional and evidentiary protections still apply and must be forcefully asserted.

Matthew Galluzzo has repeatedly written and spoken about defending clients in state and federal courts in New York and Connecticut, has experience drafting and litigating complex motions, and brings focused advocacy to high-stakes federal matters. In cases with digital complexity, deep knowledge of forensic practice and federal sentencing law matters — and that’s the kind of focused, technical defense a charged person needs.

If you or someone you care about is charged in federal court: do not talk to investigators without counsel, preserve devices (do not wipe or attempt to hide data), and call an experienced federal defense lawyer immediately. The federal system moves fast and the consequences are severe. Contact Matthew Galluzzo to discuss his possible representation.