This article from 2019 is, less bad, but still doesn't explain it very well:
https://www.zdnet.com/home-and-office/networking/arin-recove...
So, they purchased addresses from ARIN (via shell companies), then resold them. They made a profit. That's arbitrage. All the article keeps saying vis-a-vis fraud is they "failed to provide documents."
My point isn't even that this isn't fraud, it is just that seemingly nobody is able to write up the case in a coherent way. EXPLAIN THE FRAUD.
If the need was made up to procure addresses for sale, that's fraud. If ARIN asks for deployment documentation and it's not provided, there could be lots of reasons, but if the applicant never intended to deploy and doesn't want to make up more documents, that points towards fraud at the initial application.
(Not sure if anyone wrote a good article to reference)
I suspect there are limits and rules about who can be issued ipv4 addresses.
>the elaborate scheme involved the use of legally registered but non-existent companies Golestan claimed were “Channel Partners” to defraud not only ARIN but also the entire Internet community. The prosecutors proved that “through this scheme, Golestan and Micfo obtained the rights to approximately 757,760 IP addresses, with a market value between $9,850,880.00 and $14,397,440.00.”
So basically, he stole tons of IPv4 address space he wasn't legally entitled to by using tons of shell companies with no purpose but to defraud ARIN.
[0] https://krebsonsecurity.com/2023/10/tech-ceo-sentenced-to-5-...