رویکرد نظام کیفری استرالیا به جرم انگاری سرقت هویت (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
امروزه موضوع سرقت هویت مورد توجه رسانه ها و افکار عمومی قرار گرفته و به عنوان یکی از سریع ترین جرایم در حال رشد در سطح جهانی شناخته می شود. این مسئله در سطح داخلی و بین المللی حائز اهمیت است و می تواند عنصری محوری در جرائم فراملی باشد. در این پدیده ی مجرمانه که عمدتاً به منظور کلاهبرداری انجام می شود، فردی هویت متعلق به غیر را بدون آگاهی او مورد استفاده قرار می دهد و این موضوع به چالشی بزرگ برای جوامع عصر دیجیتال تبدیل شده است؛ قربانیان این جرم، خسارات مالی و روانی فاجعه باری را تجربه می کنند و پیامدهای آن برای جامعه بسیار گسترده است. از این رو، در سال های اخیر، حوزه های قضایی استرالیا نیاز به تصویب جرایمی تحت عنوان جرایم هویتی را احساس کرده اند. این مطالعه با روش توصیفی-تحلیلی و بهره گیری از منابع کتابخانه ای، ضمن تبیین مفهوم سرقت هویت و مبانی جرم انگاری آن، به بررسی و نقد جرایم مقرر در حقوق استرالیا می پردازد. یافته های پژوهش حاضر نشان می دهد که قانونگذاران استرالیا هنوز سرقت هویت را به طور دقیق جرم انگاری نکرده اند بلکه بیشتر به پیشگیری از آسیب های اجتماعی و خساراتی که ممکن است در نتیجه ی سوءاستفاده از اطلاعات شناسایی حاصل شود، توجه داشته اند. درک جرایم هویتی و بازنگری قوانین برای مقابله مؤثر با آن، پیام اصلی این مطالعه است.The Australian Criminal Justice System’s Approach to the Criminalization of Identity Theft
Identity theft has become a prominent issue in both media and public discourse and is recognized as one of the fastest-growing crimes globally. It is a national and international concern and often plays a central role in transnational crimes. Typically committed for the purpose of fraud, identity theft involves an individual using another person’s identity without their knowledge, posing a major challenge in the digital age. While identity-related crimes are not new, the digital era's increased access to and reliance on personal information has significantly facilitated their rise and ease of execution. Perpetrators commonly use stolen personal information to withdraw money from bank accounts, open new accounts, or access services such as healthcare under the victim's identity. One of the most alarming aspects of identity theft is the broad spectrum of potential victims—including governments, companies, and individuals across all ages, genders, educational backgrounds, and income levels. The consequences can be severe, ranging from financial loss and psychological harm to a damaged credit rating, false criminal records, and extensive time and effort required to restore one's financial and legal standing. In Australia, identity crime has recently emerged as a pressing issue within the criminal justice system, imposing significant costs on the national economy and often serving as a facilitator for more serious offences such as terrorism and human trafficking. In response, Australian authorities have undertaken considerable efforts to study identity crime and develop relevant laws at both federal and state levels. This article represents the first study in our country to examine Australian laws on identity crime. By focusing on the criminalization of identity theft, the research contributes to broader criminal law scholarship. Analyzing the current legal frameworks used to prosecute identity crimes is essential for developing effective deterrents and guiding law enforcement responses. Employing a descriptive-analytical method and relying on library resources, this study explains the concept of identity theft, explores the principles underpinning its criminalization, critically reviews Australian statutes, highlights the key features of different legal approaches, and identifies fundamental differences across jurisdictions. The study’s findings indicate that, despite increasing concern about the damaging consequences of identity theft, Australian jurisdictions have not yet fully criminalized the offence. Instead, the legal focus remains on preventing broader social harm through predicate offences—such as possessing or trading identity information—that lack clear mental elements tied to the accused's intent. These offences are not only overly broad in scope but also rest on a problematic theoretical foundation centered around the mere possession of information. This breadth shifts the responsibility of defining criminal boundaries from legislators to law enforcement, which risks undermining core principles of fairness and justice in criminal law. Consequently, secondary offences may overshadow the primary crimes they are meant to support. Systematic efforts are needed to clearly define prohibited activities and avoid vague or misleading terminology. There must be a careful balance between protecting society and avoiding over-criminalization. To that end, lawmakers should provide clear, rational justifications for criminalizing specific behaviors. A standardized legal definition of identity crimes—something international bodies have yet to achieve—is crucial. Such a definition should incorporate the essential elements of identity crimes, including acquisition, production, transfer, possession, and use of identity information. Establishing this foundation is vital for understanding identity theft and formulating effective prevention, prosecution, and compensation strategies.
تبلیغات
