Cyber Security Law Cases

in India
1. Name: State Vs. Rajesh Gosain & Anr. AND Vijay Govind Vs. State & Anr.
Case ID: MANU/DE/0409/2014
Crux: It is the case of the petitioner that FIR No. 154/2011 came to be registered on the complaint of Mr. Vijay Govind Saxena, General Manager (HR), M/s. Vogueserv International Pvt. Ltd. alleging that their ex-employees, namely, Mr. Rajesh Gosain, Mr. Alok Gupta, Mr. Abhishek Arvind and Mr. Mohit Kothiwal had committed theft of data by way of unauthorised access to the computer system, network and emails of the company and also took wrongful possession of sensitive and confidential information entrusted to them in their capacity. It was further alleged that the aforesaid persons diverted business from Vogueserv International Pvt. Ltd. to their newly formed company.Verdict: Anticipatory bail stayed.

2. Name: A. Shankar S/o. K. AchimuthuVs.State rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Cyber Crime Cell Crime Branch CID
Case ID: MANU/TN/3055/2010
Crux: It is alleged by the prosecution that on 01.04.2008 and 02.04.2008 at the room of Legal Advisor’s of Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC), Chennai the Petitioner, without the permission of the owner of the computer i.e., the witness Thiru N. Vijayarajan, Legal Advisor of DVAC and authorised user of the computer, having taken advantage of the absence of Legal Advisor, unauthorisedly accessed into the computer system of Legal Advisor through his pen drive named “SUJATHA” accessed the folder “Director’s back up 2” kept in the Legal Advisor’s computer without the permission of the owner of the information i.e., witness Thiru S.K. Upadhyay, and also downloaded the audio file including “CS 20.09.2007” and caused publication of the same in the “Deccan Chronicle” an English daily news paper on 14.04.2008 and also for the telecast on the same day on “Makkal TV” and “Jaya TV” at 08.00pm and 10.00pm., respectively. The Petitioner by accessing the computer system and information without the permission of the owners/authorised users copied, caused publication and thereby diminished the value of information, utility and affected it injuriously by means of securing access and downloaded the information, which was recorded and saved for the purpose of exclusive possession and use by the witness Thiru S.K. Upadhyay.
After filing of the charge sheet on 26.12.2008, now the Petitioner for the alleged commission of offences of hacking with protected computer system and breach of confidentiality has been facing three charges under Sections 66, 72 and Section 70 of Information Technology Act 2000.
Verdict: Case proceeds to trial.

3. Name: Mphasis BPO Fraud: 2005
Section: Section 43 – Penalty and Compensation for damage to computer, computer system, etc
Crux: In December 2004, four call centre employees, working at an outsourcing facility operated by MphasiS in India, obtained PIN codes from four customers of MphasiS’ client, Citi Group. These employees were not authorized to obtain the PINs. In association with others, the call centre employees opened new accounts at Indian banks using false identities. Within two months, they used the PINs and account information gleaned during their employment at MphasiS to transfer money from the bank accounts of CitiGroup customers to the new accounts at Indian banks. By April 2005, the Indian police had tipped off to the scam by a U.S. bank, and quickly identified the individuals involved in the scam. Arrests were made when those individuals attempted to withdraw cash from the falsified accounts, $426,000 was stolen; the amount recovered was $230,000.
Verdict: Court held that Section 43(a) was applicable here due to the nature of unauthorized access involved to commit transactions.

4. Name: Syed Asifuddin and Ors. Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Case ID: MANU/AP/0660/2005
Section: Section 65 – Tampering with Computer Source Documents
Crux: In this case, Tata Indicom employees were arrested for manipulation of the electronic 32- bit number (ESN) programmed into cell phones theft were exclusively franchised to Reliance Infocomm.
Verdict: Court held that tampering with source code invokes Section 65 of the Information Technology Act.
5. Name: Kumar v/s Whiteley
Section: Section 66 – Computer Related offenses
Crux: In this case the accused gained unauthorized access to the Joint Academic Network (JANET) and deleted, added files and changed the passwords to deny access to the authorized users. Investigations had revealed that Kumar was logging on to the BSNL broadband Internet connection as if he was the authorized genuine user and ‘made alteCruxn in the computer database pertaining to broadband Internet user accounts’ of the subscribers. The CBI had registered a cybercrime case against Kumar and carried out investigations on the basis of a complaint by the Press Information Bureau, Chennai, which detected the unauthorized use of broadband Internet. The complaint also stated that the subscribers had incurred a loss of Rs 38,248 due to Kumar’s wrongful act. He used to ‘hack’ sites from Bangalore, Chennai and other cities too, they said.
Verdict: The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, sentenced N G Arun Kumar, the techie from Bangalore to undergo a rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs 5,000 under section 420 IPC (cheating) and Section 66 of IT Act (Computer related Offense).

6. Name: case
Crux: Sony India Private Ltd, which runs a website called, targeting Non Resident Indians. The website enables NRIs to send Sony products to their friends and relatives in India after they pay for it online.  In May 2002, someone logged onto the website under the identity of Barbara Campa and ordered a Sony Colour Television set and a cordless head phone, credit card number was given and the address where the product was supposed to be delivered was furnished. The address was of Arif Azim, Noida. The transaction closed at that, but after one and a half months the credit card agency informed the company that this was an unauthorized transaction as the real owner had denied having made the purchase. The company lodged a complaint for online cheating at the Central Bureau of Investigation which registered a case under Section 418, 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The matter was investigated into and Arif Azim was arrested. Investigations revealed that Arif Azim, while working at a call center in Noida gained access to the credit card number of an American national which he misused on the company’s site. The case has shown that IPC can come in handy where ITA- 2000 did not cover certain categories of cybercrimes.

7. Name: Nasscom vs. Ajay Sood & Others

Citation :  119 (2005) DLT 596, 2005 (30) PTC 437 Del
Crux: A landmark judgment by the Delhi High Court ‘phishing’ on the internet was declared to be an illegal act, entailing an injunction and recovery of damages. Court stated that phishing is a form of internet fraud where a person pretends to be a legitimate association, such as a bank or an insurance company in order to extract personal data from a customer such as access codes, passwords, etc. The Delhi HC stated that even though there is no specific legislation in India to penalize phishing still the court held the act of phishing as passing off and tarnishing the Nasscom’s image.
sg Singapore
1. Name: ANB v ANC and another [2014] SGHC 172

Court: High Court of Singapore

Crux: When W entered the matrimonial home and used, or removed, the Asus Notebook, she was within her rights to do so as joint owner of the house; and the Asus Notebook was a “family computer” and she was entitled to use it. In this case, it has exacerbated the acrimony between parties to the extent that it completely overshadowed the interests of the two young children of the marriage.

2. Name: Public Prosecutor v. Muhammad Nuzaihan bin Kamal Luddin

Court: High Court of Singapore.
Citation: [1999] 3 SLR(R) 653

Crux: The accused decided to gain unauthorized access to the proxy server in order to make use of the cable network’s high-speed link to download files from the Internet. The parents have failed to avert the commission of these offences in the first place, despite the fact that they were committed at home, fortifies the view that responsibility for the offender’s future behavior can no longer be left in the hands of his parents.
3. Name: Public Prosecutor v. Navaseelan Balasingam

Court: High Court of Singapore
Citation: [2007] 1 SLR 767; [2006] SGHC 228

Crux: The accused was a engaged in a course of conduct that involved withdrawing cash from ATMs of the United Overseas Bank (UOB) using fake ATM cards, cloned from originals belonging to account holders living in the UK.

4. Name: Public Prosecutor v. Fernando Payagala Waduge Malitha Kumar

Court: High Court of Singapore
Citation: [2007] 2 SLR(R) 334 (“Fernando”) at [39]-[42])

Crux: There was an opportunistic misuse of a credit card found by the passenger, who used the card to make several unauthorized purchases while in transit at the airport.

5. Name: BJZ v BKA

Court: District Court
Citation: [2013] SGHC 149

Crux: The wife didn’t access any computer system she was unauthorized to, as she merely accessed the family computer and found the pictures with objectionable content belonging to the husband.
us United States
1. Name: Google Android Consumer Priv. Litig.,

Citation: 2013 WL 1283236 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2013)

Crux: The plaintiffs brought suit after discovering that Google used code hidden in Applications, which the plaintiffs classified as “spyware,” to collect personally identifiable information (“PII”), including their name, gender, zip code, Applications activity, and geolocation data, among other things. The plaintiffs contended that Google collected this data without providing proper notice and without their knowledge and consent. The plaintiffs further alleged that Google disseminated this information without their consent for marketing and research purposes. The plaintiffs brought several state law claims and also included a claim under the CFAA.

Verdict: Ultimately, however, the CFAA count was dismissed because the plaintiffs could not demonstrate that they suffered $5,000 in damages, the requisite amount outlined in the CFAA. The court stated that a mere invasion of statutory or constitutional right is not enough to satisfy the damage requirement under the CFAA.

2. Name: iPhone Application Litig.,

Citation: 844 F.Supp.2d 1040 (N.D. Cal. 2012)

Crux: In this case, the plaintiffs asserted that Apple’s practice of using iDevices to retain location history files violated the CFAA. Apple argued that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim pursuant to the CFAA because they did not plead facts that established that Apple accessed the plaintiffs’ iOS Devices without authorization. In fact, the Court agreed with Apple that plaintiffs voluntarily installed the software that caused the users’ iDevices to maintain, synchronize, and retain detailed, unencrypted location history files.

Verdict: The plaintiffs unable to demonstrate that Apple accessed their devices without authorization, they also failed to demonstrate that their “loss” amounted to the $5,000 minimum under the CFAA. Thus, the plaintiffs’ CFFA claims were dismissed.

3. Name: Willingham v. Global Payments, Inc.,

Citation: U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27764 (N.D. Ga. 2013)

Crux: The defendant, Global Payments, was a provider of electronic transaction processing services for merchants and contracted with retailers to handle the processing of credit card transactions. Global Payments issued a public statement acknowledging that it had been the target of an attack and had suffered unauthorized third party access into a portion of its processing system and about 1.5 million credit card numbers may have been exported. The named plaintiffs in the case discovered fraudulent charges that were made on their credit cards that were used with merchants that allegedly contracted with Global Payments. In turn, those plaintiffs sought relief under the SCA.

Verdict: The plaintiffs’ SCA claims were primarily dismissed because Global Payments did not provide a service “to the public,” as required by the statute. Further, Global Payments did not “knowingly divulge” the plaintiffs’ data. Thus, the court held that the plaintiffs’ failure to allege any actual act on the part of Global Payments was fatal to their claim. The failure to take reasonable steps to safeguard data, or mere negligence, was not enough to constitute a violation of the SCA.

4. Name: Liberty Media Holdings,

Citation: LLC v. Does 1-59

Crux: There was unauthorized access by the defendants under the CFAA. Intentional access to stored electronic data in violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and also unauthorized reproduction and distribution of the plaintiff’s copyrighted works onto local hard drives in violation of the Copyright Act.

5. Name: Corona v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc.,

Citation: No. 14-CV-09600 (RGK) (C.D. Cal. June 15, 2015)

Crux: The litigation arose from a security breach at Sony where the sensitive and personal information of at least 15,000 former and current Sony employees was stolen. The putative class alleged: (1) negligence; (2) breach of implied contract; (3) violation of the California Customer Records Act; (4) violation of the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act; (5) violation of the Unfair Competition Law; (6) declaratory judgment; (7) violation of Virginia Code §18.2 186.6; and (8) violation of Colorado Revised Statutes § 6-1-716.

Verdict: Sony moved to dismiss for lack of Article III standing under Rule 12(b)(1) and failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
6. Name: United States v. Ivanov

Citation: 175 F. Supp. 2d 36

Crux: An American court case addressing subject-matter jurisdiction for computer crimes performed by Internet users outside of the United States against American businesses and infrastructure. In trial court, Aleksey Vladimirovich Ivanov of Chelyabinsk, Russia was indicted for conspiracy, computer fraud, extortion, and possession of illegal access devices; all crimes committed against the Online Information Bureau (OIB) whose business and infrastructure were based in Vernon, Connecticut. Ivanov moved to dismiss the indictment, claiming that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that “because he was physically located in Russia when the offenses were committed, he can not be charged with violations of United States law.”

Verdict: The court denied Ivanov’s motion, “first, because the intended and actual detrimental effects of Ivanov’s actions in Russia occurred within the United States, and second, because each of the statutes under which Ivanov was charged with a substantive offense was intended by Congress to apply extraterritorially.” In a later ruling, Ivanov pleaded guilty to several crimes, including computer intrusion and computer fraud, and was sentenced to 48 months in prison followed by 3 months of supervised release.

7. Name: ACLU v. Clapper

Crux: In June 2013, The Guardian published a classified document leaked by former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden detailing how the NSA is vacuuming up call data from the Verizon phone network under the auspices of Section 215 of the Patriot Act. Within days, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to defend Americans’ rights to privacy, due process, and free speech. At the district court level, EFF represented Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, one of the original authors of the Patriot Act, who told the court that the NSA’s mass telephone records collection program was not what Congress intended when it passed the legislation. At the appellate level, EFF represented 17 computer scientists and professors, who explained that telephone call metadata can reveal behavioral patterns of innocent Americans, including their political and religious affiliations.

Verdict: On May 7, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in favor of the ACLU, finding that “the telephone metadata program exceeds the scope of what Congress has authorized and therefore violates [Section 215].” On October 29, 2015, the Second Circuit remanded the case back to district court.

8. Name: U.S.A V. Andrew Auernheimer

Citation: Criminal No. 11-cr-470 (SDW)

Crux: Spitler wrote a computer program, which downloaded thousands of pages, to obtain thousands of email addresses from the AT&T server exploit, which had been found.

9. Name: United States v. Batti

Citation: 2011 WL 111745 (6th Cir. Jan. 14, 2011)

Crux: There was an improper accessing of confidential files from his employer’s computer servers, rejecting the defendant’s argument that the value of the proprietary television commercial footage wrongfully obtained did not exceed the $5,000 statutory requirement. Because no readily ascertainable market value for the corporate advertising footage existed, a trier of fact need only determine the value of the information through some appropriate means.
au Australia
1. Name: Stevens v Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment

Citation: [2005] HCA 58; 224 CLR 193; 79 ALJR 1850; 221 ALR 448; 65 IPR 513

Verdict: The sui generis nature of computer programs needs to be given further consideCruxn and that possibly an independent legal regime needs to be created for computer programs, disassociated from literary works.

2. Name: Roadshow Films Pty Ltd & others v iiNet Ltd

Citation: S288/2011

Crux: Between members of the Australian FedeCruxn Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) and other movie and television studios and iiNet, Australia’s second-largest Internet service provider (ISP). The alliance of 34 companies unsuccessfully claimed that iiNet authorized primary copyright infringement by failing to take reasonable steps to prevent its customers from downloading and sharing infringing copies of films and television programs using BitTorrent.
Verdict: The trial court delivered judgment on 4 February 2010, dismissing the application and awarding costs to iiNet. An appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court was dismissed by Emmett and Nicholas JJ (Jagot J dissenting). A subsequent appeal to the High Court was unanimously dismissed on 20 April 2012.
3. Name: Telstra Corpn Limited v Phone Directories Company Pty Ltd

Citation: [2010] FCAFC 149

Crux: The Applicants could not point to which work by a given individual was to be considered relevant in establishing originality. The work of many of these individuals that was said to constitute the relevant effort was ancillary to or divorced from the production of the directories in their material form, or was not directed to the directories in suit. The question of whether copyright subsists is concerned with the particular form of expression of the work. You must identify authors, and those authors must direct their contribution (assessed as either an “independent intellectual effort” of a “sufficient effort of a literary nature”) to the particular form of expression of the work. Start with the work. Find its authors. They must have done something, howsoever defined, that can be considered original.

Verdict: The Applicants have failed to satisfy these conditions. Whether originality be the product of some “independent intellectual effort” and / or the exercise of “sufficient effort of a literary nature”, or involve a “creative spark” or the exercise of “skill and judgment”, it is not evident in the claim made by the Applicants.

4. Name: R V. BODEN

Citation : [2002] QCA 164

Crux: There was insufficient evidence to show that problems attributed by the prosecution to hacking were done by the accused or anyone else. Witnesses were lying or making up stories to help the prosecution. The equipment installed by Hunter Watertech had continuous problems before and after the appellant’s arrest so that the malfunctions relied on by the prosecution can’t be attributed to improper intervention beyond reasonable doubt.

Verdict: It was not proved that the appellant was in or about Maroochydore on the days when hacking was alleged to have occurred or that any of the illicit messages were sent by the appellant’s computer. The appellant had no motive for the alleged conduct.

5. Name: Skeeve Stevens v. X

Verdict: The accused accessed computer systems in Sydney without authorization and inserted data, further ConsideCruxns of deterrence are required, both for the offender and other hackers who might be tempted, not always for reasons of monetary gain but sometimes sheer maliciousness.

6. Name: Dabrowski v Greeuw

Citation: [2014] WADC 175

Crux: The plaintiff, Miro Dabrowski, is a schoolteacher and brought the proceedings against his estranged wife, Robyn Greeuw. It was tried in the District Court in Perth, over a period of 9 days, with the defendant acting in person. In December 2012, the defendant posted the word on her public Facebook page “separated from Miro Dabrowski after 18 years of suffering domestic violence and abuse. Now fighting the system to keep my children safe” It was drawn to the plaintiff’s attention by his brother and four other witnesses gave evidence that they had seen it. One witness gave evidence that she went on a date with the plaintiff and upon returning home went onto Facebook to see what his ex-wife looked like. She said that she opened the defendant’s Facebook page and saw the disputed post which left her shocked, horrified, confused and upset. The defendant denied that she had posted these words on Facebook. She said she was unfamiliar with Facebook and did not realize that what she typed had been uplifted to her public Facebook site.

Verdict: “I have no doubt that the post caused Mr Dabrowski personal distress, humiliation and hurt and harm to his reputation and it did cause people to ‘look at him twice’ and be more reserved about their contact with him. He is an experienced educator and is entitled to public vindication. I have found that the defence of justification has not been established. Ms Greeuw’s persistence in that defence and her denial of the publication are properly taken into account in assessing damages as is the grapevine effect. There was no financial loss; the remarks were made to a limited audience, and were at the end of the day a Facebook post made by an estranged spouse and removed about six weeks after it was posted. He concluded that an award of damages of Aus$12,500 as “realistic and appropriate”.
gb United Kingdom
1. Name: Malone V. United Kingdom

Crux: The phrase ‘in accordance with the law’ does not merely refer back to domestic law but also relates to the quality of the law, requiring it to be compatible with the rule of law.’

2. Name: R. v. Zafar, Butt, Iqbal, Raja and Malik

Citation: [2008] EWCA Crim 184; [2008] WLR (D) 51

Crux: They were in possession of radical jihadist material and other material such as a United States military manual downloaded from the Internet. Evidence of communications via online messenger were found, including a discussion between all four of the Bradford appellants and a cousin of Malik—Imran—who lived in Pakistan

3. Name: Bussey Law Firm PC and Timothy Raymond Bussey v Jason Page (aka Jay Page)

Citation: [2015] EWHC 563 (QB)

Crux: The First Claimant, Bussey Law Firm PC, is a law firm in the state of Colorado, in the United Statements. The Second Claimant, Mr Timothy Bussey, is the principal of the firm. Reviews of businesses that appear on Google Maps can be posted on the site and are accessed throught the search engine. Someone posted a defamatory allegation on the Claimants’ Google Maps profile, alongside a number of positive reviews of him and his firm. There was no suggestion that these allegations were true. The defendant Jason “Jay” Page is a young man in his 20s who lives with his parents in Telford. The issue in the case was whether the Claimants could prove that the Defendant was responsible for the posting.

Victory: A US lawyer and his firm were awarded libel damages of £50,000 for internet abuse by an individual in England.

4. Name: R v Gold & Schifreen

Citation: [1988] 1 AC 1063 (HL)

Crux: The language of the Act was not intended to apply to the situation which was shown to exist in this case. The submissions at the close of the prosecution case should have succeeded. It is a conclusion which we reach without regret. The Procrustean attempt to force these facts into the language of an Act not designed to fit them produced grave difficulties for both judge and jury which we would not wish to see repeated. The appellants’ conduct amounted in essence, as already stated, to dishonestly gaining access to the relevant Prestel data bank by a trick. That is not a criminal offence. If it is thought desirable to make it so, that is a matter for the legislature rather than the courts.

5. Name: Gareth Crosskey

Crux: Crosskey gained unauthorised access to the Facebook account of an individual including the private email function. He caused computer to perform function to secure unauthorized access to a program/data with intent to impair open of or prevent/hinder access to a computer.

6. Name: R v. Terence Roy Brown

Crux: Terence Roy Brown, ran an online business, sold an annual edition of a Cookbook CD-ROM. Rather than a single publication, however, these discs contained 10,322 files, some of which were complete publications in their own right. These included terrorist manuals such as the Al-Qaida Manual and instructions for the manufacture of different forms of explosives and the construction of bombs. Other files consisted of instructions for making poisons, how to avoid attracting the attention of authorities when travelling and weapons handling techniques.
ca Canada
1. Name: R. v. Said Namouh

Crux: Intercepted communications containing statements, which showed the zealous, active nature of his participation in the activities of GIMF. Also relevant in the court’s view were several posts, in which the defendant expressed his wish to conceal his activities, and those of GIMF, by removing incriminating computer data

2. Name: Pierre-Guy Lavoie V. Public Prosecutor

Crux: Fraudulent use of computer passwords to break into many government and corporate sites. Lavoie, and two of his friends who were discharged, listed the passwords on a website they created and invited others to penetrate the systems

3. Name: Gestion Yanik Guillemette Inc. v Les Ecrans Verts Inc.

Crux: The cause of action has arisen in Quebec because fault has been committed and the damage, if any, were probably incurred in Quebec. the message is not accused the subject of an email is then sent to specific individuals as opposed to a shipment on a website open to the public in general, at least to anyone with access the website. This is also the criticism made by the applicant to have aired on a large scale these defamatory.

4. Name: Goldhar v

Crux: The defendants have not discharged the burden, as noted above in Van Breda, “… to show that, in light of the characteristics of the alternative forum, it would be fairer and more efficient to do so and that the plaintiff should be denied the benefits of his or her decision to select a forum that is appropriate under conflicts rules.” An Israeli court is not a clearly more appropriate forum than Ontario for the trial of this defamation action.

5. Name: Douez v Facebook, Inc.

Crux: Facebook had shown, at least prima facie, that the clause was valid, clear and enforceable. She did not decide whether Facebook had shown the forum selection clause applied to Ms. Douez’s claim. She disposed of the issue by holding that, even assuming Facebook had met its burden, s. 4 of the Privacy Act “overrides” the forum selection clause or, alternatively, Ms. Douez had shown strong cause to not enforce the forum selection clause. Ms. Douez had shown strong cause to not enforce the forum selection clause. In a sense this was simply a different way of framing her conclusion that s. 4 overrides the forum selection clause. To deprive Ms. Douez of her right to bring a claim under s. 3(2) of the Privacy Act would be contrary to the legislative intent of the Privacy Act and to public policy more generally
ru Russia
1. Name: Yevgeniy Anikin v. Attorney General

Crux: Yevgeniy Anakin was a member of an international hacker group found persons engaged in counterfeiting bankcard used in the theft of $9.5 million. The duo then recruited others to execute the final phase of the fraudulent opeCruxn of making cash withdrawals from ATMs in different countries and transferring the funds to a collective pool.

2. Name: Oleg and Sergey Chetverikov Elsukov V. Attorney General

Crux: The accused were using a false identity account constituted fraud committed by an organized group.

3. Name: Mr. V V. Ms. X

Crux: Unauthorized access to computer data protected by law, violating privacy of correspondence, illegally collecting information on a person’s private life constituting their personal secret and disclosing this information without their consent.

4. Name: N v. M,L & J

Crux: N’s deliberate acts constituted a crime stipulated– distribution and use of computer spyware that causes unauthorized copying of users’ data; as well as a crime – attempted unauthorized access to computer data protected by law, that is, data stored on a machine-readable medium, in a computer, computer system or network, that entailed copying of data.

5. Name: Mr. Sh v. OOO HC Rosgosstrakh

Crux: The accused acts amounted to illegal disclosure of information constituting trade secret without consent of its owner out of pecuniary interest after acquiring the information at workplace.
1. Name: Hong Lei V. Business Software Alliance

Crux: Even if he did not originally crack Windows XP for financial gain, he most likely continued to distribute Tomato Garden for financial gain after he entered into agreements with the ad solicitors for advertisements from his webpage, and for a certain commission for each user that signed up for Yahoo! China due to the inclusion of certain plug-ins to Windows XP Tomato Garden.

2. Name: HKSAR v TAM Hei-lun

Crux: Access to a computer with a dishonest intent to retrieve the medical records of Secretary of Justice and further shared the same with two newspapers.

3. Name: HKSAR v. Tsun Shui Lun

Crux: Access to a computer with a dishonest intent to retrieve the medical records of Secretary of Justice and further shared the same with two newspapers.

4. Name: HKSAR v. LEE Shiu-keun

Crux: The two defendants established 6 sham companies and bank accounts to conduct overseas trading, with a conspiracy to defraud.

fr France
1. Name: Kruslin V. France

Crux: French law, written and unwritten, does not indicate with reasonable clarity the scope and manner of exercise of the relevant discretion conferred on the public authorities. This was truer still at the material time, so that Mr Kruslin did not enjoy the minimum degree of protection to which citizens are entitled under the rule of law in a democratic society.
2. Name: Public Prosecutor v. Hicheur

Crux: Communications proved Hicheur had been fully aware that he was engaging with a member of AQIM, and that he had acted knowingly and willingly as an intermediary between jihadist fighters and GIMF

3. Name: Public Prosecutor v. Arnaud, Badache, Guihal and others
Crux: Accused had conducted research on matters relating to the commission of terrorist acts, for example products capable of being used to make explosives and incendiary devices, identifying possible targets and tracking the activities of a company which used ammonium nitrate. The enquiries revealed that Arnaud had recruited Guihal and Bad ache, taken part in meetings and discussions to prepare an attack, made contact with people involved in jihadist movements to seek help in carrying it out and received remittances to fund it.

Scroll to top