News
Tesla employee foregoes $1M payment, works with FBI to thwart cybersecurity attack
Sometimes, the events that transpire inside a company could be just as exciting and nail-biting as the most popular thrillers in fiction. In Tesla’s case, such a scenario recently played out, as a worker in Gigafactory Nevada ended up turning down a $1 million incentive, working closely with the FBI, and thwarting a planned cybersecurity attack against the electric car maker.
This Tuesday, the Department of Justice announced the arrest of Egor Igorevich Kriuchkov, a Russian citizen accused of conspiring to breach the network of a US company and introduce malware to compromise the said company’s networks. Media reports about the incident have identified the US company to be electric car maker Tesla. Interestingly enough, a criminal complaint filed by the FBI Las Vegas Field Office suggests that the attempted cybersecurity attack is no ordinary hacking attempt — it may very well be part of a well-financed, organized, scheme.
The plan begins
The remarkable story began when a Russian-speaking, non-US citizen working at Tesla’s Gigafactory Nevada was contacted by Kriuchkov. The employee, whose identity has not been revealed, has access to the electric car maker’s computer networks. On July 16, the Russian citizen contacted the Giga Nevada employee through WhatsApp asking to meet with him in Sparks, Nevada. As noted in a report from Clearance Jobs, the fact that Kriuchkov approached a Russian-speaking, non-US citizen working at Gigafactory Nevada suggests that the team behind the cyberattack attempt has done their research well.
The Tesla employee, some colleagues, and Kriuchkov met socially from August 1-3, which included a trip to Lake Tahoe. Interestingly enough, Kriuchkov reportedly declined to be present in any photos that were taken during the trip. At one point when the group was taking a photo during a picturesque sunset, Kriuchkov reportedly remarked that he would “just remember the beauty of the sunset and did not need a photograph.” After the relatively harmless Lake Tahoe trip, the Russian citizen asked the Tesla employee to meet with him for some “business.”
Down to “business”
During their “business” meeting, Kriuchkov revealed his hand. The plan involved the Tesla employee inserting malware provided by Kriuchkov and his associates to the electric car maker’s systems. After the malware is inserted, a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack would occur that could allow the hackers to occupy the Tesla information security team. The malware would also allow the hackers to extract corporate and network data, which would be held ransom until the electric car maker pays up. For his participation in the ploy, the Gigafactory Nevada employee would receive $500,000, later raised to $1 million, to be paid in cash or bitcoin.
Unfortunately for Kriuchkov and his team, the Giga Nevada employee actually reported the planned cybersecurity attack to Tesla, which, in turn, contacted the FBI. The FBI stepped in, and with the agency’s help, the Tesla employee continued to communicate with Kriuchkov, trying to get as much information as possible about the hackers’ processes, procedures, and infrastructure. The efforts proved fruitful. In one conversation, the hacker reportedly boasted that his team had recently received a ransom worth over $4 million from a high profile company. Later reports would reveal that the company in question was CWT Travel, which reportedly paid a ransom of $4.5 million.
The plan falls through
During a meeting on August 19, the Tesla employee, wearing a wire from the FBI, met with Kriuchkov. The hacker agreed to pay an advance of $11,000 to the Giga Nevada worker. Two days later, on August 21, the Tesla employee was contacted by the hacker once more, who stated that the project was being “delayed” and all payments relating to the plan would not be transferred until a later date. Kriuchkov also informed the Tesla employee that he was leaving the area the following day. Behind the scenes, the FBI was able to get in touch with the hacker, who, in turn, drove overnight from Reno, Nevada to Los Angeles in what appeared to be an attempt to flee the United States.
Kriuchkov was unsuccessful, as he was arrested on August 22, 2020 in Los Angeles. The hacker is currently being detained pending trial. Fortunately for Tesla, the company was able to get away from what could have been a serious cybersecurity attack, and it has one employee to thank for it. It takes a lot, after all, to say no to a $1 million reward, as others have compromised far more for far less.
Read the FBI’s complaint against Kriuchkov below.
Complaint Egor Kriuchkov 3 20 Mj 83-0-0 by Simon Alvarez on Scribd
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
