کلاهبرداری رایانه ای در نظام های کیفری ایران، انگلستان و وِیلز (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
جرم رایانه ای اصطلاحی است که دلالتِ ضمنی بر استفاده از شبکه های رایانه ای به طور خاص دارد. چنین جرایمی فرصت های جدیدی برای ارتکاب کلاهبرداری فراهم آورده اند، به ویژه از آن رو که این جرم دربرگیرنده ی انواع مختلفی از رفتارها است که با قصد فریب دادن و کسب منافعِ بدون زحمت شناخته شده اند. افزون بر این، بدون شک دسترسیِ افزایش یافته به اینترنت موجب می شود که افراد مختلف آسان تر بزهدیده ی کلاهبرداری رایانه ای شوند. بر این اساس، در نظام کیفری ایران، جرم کلاهبرداری رایانه ای به طور مستقل از کلاهبرداری سنتی (غیر رایانه ای) پیش بینی شده است، ولی در نظام کیفری انگلستان و وِیلز، جرم مذکور ممکن است زیر عنوان یکی از شیوه های سه گانه ی جرم عامِ کلاهبرداری، شامل کلاهبرداری با اظهار کذب، کلاهبرداری با کوتاهی در افشای اطلاعات و یا کلاهبرداری با سوءاستفاده از موقعیت، رسیدگی شود. نوشتار حاضر، با بررسی عنصرهای سازنده ی جرمِ کلاهبرداری رایانه ای در نظام های کیفری یادشده، به این نتیجه رسیده است که برخی نقص ها در رویکرد قانونگذار ایرانی وجود دارند، از جمله میزان مجازات کمتر کلاهبرداری رایانه ای در مقایسه با کلاهبرداری سنتی (حتی از گونه ی ساده)، که رفع آن ها در راستای مقابله ی مؤثرتر با مرتکبان جرم مزبور ضروری است.Computer Fraud in Iranian, English, and Welsh Penal Systems
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.
تبلیغات
