Hamid Bahremand
Abstract
One of the characteristics of cybercrimes is that perpetrators because of the possibility of anonymity and by finding ways to commit crimes can commit several crimes against multiple victims at the same time. On one hand, some crimes are committed by using methods such as phishing, which encompasses ...
Read More
One of the characteristics of cybercrimes is that perpetrators because of the possibility of anonymity and by finding ways to commit crimes can commit several crimes against multiple victims at the same time. On one hand, some crimes are committed by using methods such as phishing, which encompasses a wide range of victims. On the other hand, according to their personality, the perpetrators of these crimes are familiar with the techniques of committing the crime and also are aware of the criminal laws and regulations, and that the commission of the crimes more than certain numbers has no effect on the amount of their punishment. This makes these rules, which are, as a rule, applicable to individuals whose multiple crimes are exceptions, is not effective for cybercriminals whose single offense is often the exception, and criminal responses do not prevent them from other crimes. The failure to impose penalties, such as deprivation of electronic public services, both as primary punishments and as additional penalties do not prevent these criminals from committing another crime again after sustaining the main penalty. The ambiguity in the regulation of the multiple crimes and unclear boundaries between actual and virtual concurrence of crimes and numerous criminal consequences has led to differences in the determination of appropriate penalties in judicial proceedings. This article, by using a library-based resources and a descriptive-analytical method, in addition to interpretive method seeks appropriate solutions for solving problems.
Jalal Tohidi; hosein Amirli
Abstract
Sentencing for cybercrimes as a formal and mandatory response is the most important way to deal with these crimes. Sentencing means judge discretion for selecting proper sentence for convicts of cybercrimes. Sentencing is applied in three states: change of legal punishment, imperfect execution of sentence ...
Read More
Sentencing for cybercrimes as a formal and mandatory response is the most important way to deal with these crimes. Sentencing means judge discretion for selecting proper sentence for convicts of cybercrimes. Sentencing is applied in three states: change of legal punishment, imperfect execution of sentence and non-execution of sentence. At first glance, sentencing for cyber criminals is similar to other criminals but differential legal penalization leads to differential sentencing. Differential approach to sentencing for cybercrimes is based on contradiction relationship between cybercrime and cybercriminal. As much as cybercriminal deserve for easy sentencing for due to factors such as age, gender, location of offense and its circumstances, talents and high qualities, vice versa cybercrime deserves rough sentencing due to widespread damages, easy commit of multiplicity of crime, commit in different places, multiple challenges for cyber forensic and prosecution like anonymity. The importance of sentencing is depends on understanding the conflict between deserves of cybercriminal and concerns of cybercrime.
Behzad Razavifard; seyyed neamat allah mousavi
Abstract
Cyber space is regarded as a body of human connections that functions thorough computers and communications without any physical space. It provides not only numerous benefits, but also a new opportunity for committing criminal behavior. This article is to determine cybercrime jurisdiction. Actually, ...
Read More
Cyber space is regarded as a body of human connections that functions thorough computers and communications without any physical space. It provides not only numerous benefits, but also a new opportunity for committing criminal behavior. This article is to determine cybercrime jurisdiction. Actually, as cybercrime is not committed in a physical space, determination of competent jurisdiction is demanding. In order to determine cybercrime jurisdiction, two kinds of criteria are taken into account: one is criminal jurisdiction based on classic rules and another is based on cybercrime’s characteristics. Therefore, it is possible to determine competent jurisdiction regarding those criteria, however, in some cases like that the accused is abroad or crime is committed in that way, there is obstacle with internal competent jurisdiction. Strategically, it is seriously required to take into account international cooperation in order to realize criminal jurisdiction.
Godarz Eftekhar Jahromi; Ebrahim Eslami
Abstract
With the advent and development of information and communication technology, human life has undergone fundamental changes. Some human behaviors which have been traditionally criminalized in every society, today take place in the form of criminal ideas in a language specific to the computer systems or ...
Read More
With the advent and development of information and communication technology, human life has undergone fundamental changes. Some human behaviors which have been traditionally criminalized in every society, today take place in the form of criminal ideas in a language specific to the computer systems or through online network. Thus there is a new world called cyberspace in which traditional boundaries have become meaningless. Perhaps some crimes against persons are planned and committed far from the residence of the victims or it is possible that ones’ usual means of everyday life are used as criminal tool against him/her or others. Today, cyber terrorism as an international crime has become the subject matter of controversies among international lawyers and the main question in this context is determining the courts’ jurisdiction which in turn poses another question as to application of procedural law rules in this respect. Traditional rules and principles regarding jurisdiction have been challenged by criminal acts which are committed through cyberspace. This paper seeks to provide an appropriate answer to the question that in the case of transnational cyber-crimes, how and to what extent courts of a given State may claim and exercise jurisdiction and on the other hand in the case of conflict of jurisdiction which rule or rules should apply to resolve such a conflict. Providing an appropriate answer to the question requires dwelling on international standards governing conflict of jurisdictions and studying practices of those states which are pioneers in combat against cyber-crimes.
