US Lawmakers Urge Blacklisting of Three Indian Hack-for-Hire Firms

Three US lawmakers have asked the Commerce Department to place three Indian information-technology companies on its Entity List, citing what they describe as more than fifteen years of targeted espionage against US citizens, businesses, and the lawyers who represent them.

The request was made in a letter sent on Wednesday by Democratic Senators Ron Wyden and Sheldon Whitehouse, together with Republican Representative Pat Harrigan. The firms named are BellTroX, CyberRoot, and Sunkissed Organic Farms Pvt. Ltd., formerly known as Appin Technology Pvt. Ltd., along with its subsidiaries.

An Entity List designation would restrict the companies from obtaining US software, cloud infrastructure, and cybersecurity tools.

Representatives of Sunkissed, CyberRoot, and the Commerce Department did not respond to requests for comment. BellTroX could not be reached.

All three companies have been identified in media reporting and in studies by major technology firms as fronts for hack-for-hire operations. In 2022, reporting named CyberRoot and BellTroX as prominent players in the cybermercenary industry, often hired by Western lawyers and private investigators to spy on opposing parties during legal and business disputes. A 2023 report described Appin as an early entrant in the field, growing from an educational startup into a hack-for-hire operation that stole secrets from executives, politicians, military officials, and wealthy individuals worldwide.

Executives at the three companies have denied any wrongdoing.

Other outlets, including The New Yorker and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, have also identified the firms as hackers-for-hire. Meta Platforms, which owns Facebook, and Alphabet-owned Google have published three reports between them on hacking activity linked to the companies.

Separately, litigation is ongoing in India between this publication and a group calling itself the Association of Appin Training Centers, which says it represents Appin alumni and accuses the publication of damaging the reputations of training centers and their students. The publication disputes the allegation.