چکیده:
Computer fraud refers to criminal behaviors carried out specifically through the use of computer networks. These offences have created new opportunities for fraudulent activity, particularly because computer-based fraud encompasses a wide range of deceptive conduct aimed at obtaining benefits without due entitlement. Evidence suggests that the financial and personal costs of such frauds—especially through methods such as identity theft and phishing—are substantial for both individual victims and society as a whole. Moreover, with the increasing accessibility of the internet—no longer confined to desktop computers but also available via tablets, smartphones, and handheld devices—the potential for individuals to fall victim to computer fraud has dramatically increased.In the Iranian penal system, computer fraud is addressed independently from traditional (non-computer) fraud. This distinction arises from the nature of the offence: computer fraud is not merely a case of fraud committed using a computer as a tool. Rather, the computer plays a fundamental and constitutive role in shaping the actus reus of the offence. Therefore, computer fraud in Iranian law falls under the category of offences committed within a computer-based context, rather than offences committed by means of a computer.According to Iranian law, any person who unlawfully obtains money, property, services, or financial advantages for themselves or another—by inputting, altering, deleting, creating, or suppressing data, or by disrupting a computer or telecommunications system—is considered to have committed computer fraud. For criminal liability to be established, both general intent and specific intent must be proven. General intent involves knowingly and willfully engaging in prohibited behaviors while being aware of the lack of authorization and the fact that the property belongs to another. Specific intent involves the aim to obtain financial gain or benefits for oneself or another individual.In contrast, under the English and Welsh legal system, computer fraud is not categorized as a standalone offence but is prosecuted under the broader umbrella of the general offence of fraud, as defined in the Fraud Act 2006. This includes three primary types: fraud by false representation, fraud by failing to disclose information, and fraud by abuse of position. For example, in fraud by false representation, the dishonest act may include phishing, pharming, presenting someone else's credit card, or using another person’s PIN at an ATM. These acts are not limited by medium and can be performed through digital platforms.Fraud by failing to disclose information can also occur via digital means—such as failing to disclose essential facts when renewing a television license online or applying for car insurance through an internet portal. In all such cases, the perpetrator must act with malicious intent, and ignorance may serve as a defense against establishing this element. However, in the context of fraud by false representation, recklessness can also satisfy the mental element required for liability. If the perpetrator is aware of the possibility that their representation is false but proceeds regardless, this may be sufficient to establish criminal liability. That said, recklessness may not suffice as mens rea for other forms of computer fraud, such as failure to disclose information or abuse of position.In both legal systems, specific intent remains a key requirement: the perpetrator must have acted with the intention of gaining a benefit or causing harm, even if that outcome is not ultimately realized.This article critically examines the key elements of computer fraud under Iranian, English, and Welsh law. It concludes that certain deficiencies exist in the Iranian legislative framework. These include the absence of a comprehensive general offence of fraud and the failure to recognize recklessness as a valid form of mens rea in the context of computer fraud. Addressing these shortcomings is essential for more effective legal responses to cyber-enabled criminal conduct. Furthermore, doing so would help reduce the over-proliferation of criminal statutes and eliminate the need for speculative interpretations concerning the offender’s mental state.
خلاصه ماشینی:
This article states: "Any person who, by unauthorized use of computer or telecommunication systems through acts such as entering, changing, deleting, creating, or stopping data, or disrupting the system, obtains funds, property, benefits, services, or financial privileges for themselves or others, shall, in addition to returning the property to its owner, be sentenced to imprisonment from one to five years or a fine from one hundred and sixty-five million (165,000,000) Rials to eight hundred and twenty-five million (825,000,000) Rials, or both.
For this reason, accessing another person's ATM card identifiers and transferring funds from another account to one's own account through a computer system is considered an instance of computer fraud, with the reasoning that the perpetrator's action is actually the unauthorized use of a computer system that leads to the taking of property belonging to another, and the aforementioned article, by mentioning illustrative instances of unauthorized use of a computer system, has criminalized the taking of property through this method (Judgment No. 9209970270100119 dated 2013/05/08, Branch 56 of the Tehran Provincial Court of Appeal).
Such a view is subject to criticism for this reason: on one hand, the use of the word 'acts' and the mention of illustrative examples of them shows that in the aforementioned article, the criminal behavior is distinguished from the resulting outcome, and in fact, the aforementioned cases are considered the outcome itself; and on the other hand, although if the perpetrator succeeds in obtaining money, property, benefit, services, or financial privileges, the infliction of a specific harm to the victim is verifiable, fundamentally in the crime of fraud, no other harm beyond that is necessary (Etemadi, 1403: 55); especially since the legislator has not referred to the necessity of causing additional loss to the owner of the property.
(
, 
, 
)
