Phishing Websites Cheat 30 Million &Nbsp For Half A Year, And Network Legislation Needs To Be Strengthened.

As many as tens of thousands of victims have been spread throughout the country, where should the case belong to?

Can a suspect never meet?

A case of Internet fraud.

Internet fraud, more than half a million people in six months

Because of being cheated on the Internet, many victims did not dare to believe the investigators at first.

Not long ago, Nanjing cracked a group crime case with a fake Taobao network for fishing and fraud: hundreds of people involved. In about six months, tens of thousands of people were victimized, and initially identified 30 million yuan involved.

Reporters recently learned that 15 of the main members of the group were arrested.

In December 11th last year, Ms. Sun reported to the Yuhuatai district police in Nanjing that she saw someone selling a cheap token card of Carrefour supermarket on the Internet, so he paid 5000 yuan in accordance with the Taobao payment link address sent by the other party.

However, after her money was paid, she never received the supermarket Token Card she bought.

After investigation, the police will arrest Wu, who sells the token card to Ms. sun.

According to Wu's account, he joined Sina UC's discussion group called "Three Kingdoms" by paying rent, and bought Taobao phishing website backstage in the group.

The Taobao payment link address he sent to miss sun is in fact false.

Then, the police will follow the example of the Shandong people Wang Jian who wrote the backstage program for the phishing website in the Sina UC group, Zhu Yanan, a Rugao County man in Rugao province who runs the phishing website, and Deng Ling, who sends the code to the fraudsters, and gradually finds out the details of the criminal gang, and has captured a number of suspects.

According to the investigation, this is a large group fraud with organized, division of labor and technical support.

It is reported that these people are distributed throughout the country.

Most of them only know each other's net names, do not know each other, but feel that they are quick to get money through Internet fraud.

In just six months, the fraud group has victimized more than ten million people, and the victims have also been distributed in most provinces and municipalities throughout the country.

The police found that few victims had voluntarily reported the case after being deceived.

As for the reasons for not reporting the case, most of the victims said that the money that was cheated on the Internet was usually only tens of yuan to several hundred yuan, the amount was not very large; moreover, it was reported that case, they did not know the real name and real identity of the other party.

It was because of being cheated on the Internet that many victims did not dare to believe the investigators even when the police investigated.

New crimes lead to three difficult problems.

Whether or not the suspect who has jurisdiction or not met can constitute a criminal group and the validity of electronic evidence is the three "legal gap" which is in front of the procuratorial organ.

"Judging from the current situation, although these people have a huge amount of fraud, it is still a more common fraud case in nature."

Nanjing Yuhuatai District procuratorate Deputy Attorney General Gu Xiaoning said.

However, when the police brought the case to the procuratorial organ for arrest, Gu Xiaoning found that in order to run the case well, the procuratorial organ must cross three "legal chasm".

First, the jurisdiction of the case.

According to the introduction, jurisdiction usually considered by judicial organs when accepting cases is territorial jurisdiction, that is, the place where the traditional theory considers crime, including the place where the criminal acts occur and the place where the result of the crime occurs, but in this case, there may be many problems when deciding jurisdiction.

Gu Xiaoning said.

Taking his case of "crime scene" as an example, he talked about his view: from the point of view of suspects, because a number of criminal suspects jointly completed the crime, the suspect may write software at A, create a false network platform, recruit personnel on the network, and disseminate criminal intent.

Suspect B applied to B, learning to use software and implementing Internet fraud.

The criminal suspect is responsible for pferring money and distributing profits at C.

Specific facts, the suspect in the A network to seduce the victim, the victim was deceived on the network of B, and revealed the contents of the Internet banking password, and the victim's corresponding online banking was stolen in C, and there will be disputes over the jurisdiction of A, B and C. From the Perspective of the victim, the victim may be deceived and report to the police. The public security organs further investigate the suspects living in the field. A, B, C are implemented in different stages of joint crime, so there will be disputes over the jurisdiction of A, B and C.

Secondly, in the virtual world, whether a criminal who has never met can constitute a problem of criminal groups.

The second paragraph of the twenty-sixth article of the criminal law of China clearly stipulates that three or more criminal organizations, which are composed of joint crimes, constitute a criminal group.

In this case, the most advanced programmers are responsible for creating, maintaining, managing the network platform, recruiting, auditing, training the offline, accepting the ringleaders who hand in the stolen money on the downline, and having active participants who induct the victim's pactions, steal the victim's account number, password, steal the property of the victims, and help the active participants to handle bank credit cards, pfer money according to their requirements, help the general participants to purchase the Internet virtual currency and sell stolen goods.

They carry out crimes on a unified platform, divide the crime according to the prior agreement, and distribute profits according to the agreement.

"Cybercrime is different from real crime. Although the suspects do not know their real identities with each other and do not communicate with others in person, it is easy for people to doubt the authenticity and reality of the joint crime."

Gu Xiaoning said, "however, in this case, the suspects clearly know each other to cooperate with others in committing crimes, their division of labor is clear, and the consequences of criminal acts are known and hoped for, and they are implemented for a long time.

Therefore, even in the virtual world, they have never met each other and can still constitute a criminal group.

Third, the validity of electronic evidence.

"The criminal procedure law stipulates seven kinds of evidence, but whether electronic evidence, such as e-mail, can be used as evidence or type of evidence in cybercrime has always been the focus of controversy."

Gu Xiaoning said.

He believed that electronic evidence should be specified as a new type of evidence in order to adapt to the current situation of cybercrime.

So how should this kind of evidence be extracted? It is reported that there are four ways for the police to obtain electronic evidence in this case: first, through the QQ chat with the victim's video screen, the police display their work permit on the screen, the victim shows his identity card, the victim answers the questions posed by the investigators through typing, and paste the cheated bank paction records in the QQ chat record in the form of pictures.

The public security organs have synchronized video recording of the Internet video chat.

Two, the victim will send a cheated paction record to the public security organ after he has printed and signed the confirmation.

Three, the investigators used the user name and password of the suspect to log on to the original crime software platform, and retrieved the data of the victim from the platform.

The four is the seizure of suspects by the public security organs, the seizure of suspects' laptop and other electronic devices, and the recording of the crime from the suspect's notebook computer.

It is understood that this "pformational evidence" is evidence of relatively low probative force in evidence theory.

Strengthening network legislation is imminent.

Since some fundamental problems have not been effectively solved, it is often very difficult to crack down on cyber crimes.

"The absence of locality of cybercrime and the lack of body characteristics of information media have made the existing criminal law somewhat unprepared."

In January 2006, Professor Zhao Bingzhi, President of the China Criminal Law Research Association, said in an interview with the media.

"Until now, some fundamental problems have not yet been effectively solved, so that we are often in a very difficult position to combat cyber crime."

Gu Xiaoning said.

In order to solve the problems brought about by network crime to criminal jurisdiction, there are many theories about the jurisdiction of cybercrime in Jurisprudence: relative jurisdiction theory, web site jurisdiction theory and territorial jurisdiction theory.

These theories are both reasonable and have their own defects.

Roach, prosecutor of Nanjing Procuratorate, said.

For example, according to the jurisdiction of the web site, any physical address associated with the URL, except for the address of the server, can be connected to this website. That is, every network user is placed under the law and is contrary to the relevant laws and regulations. The territorial jurisdiction theory does not actually solve the problem of how to identify the place of the crime and the result of the crime.

How to solve the jurisdiction problem of cybercrime involving people, Zhou Zhaoyang, prosecutor of Yuhuatai District Procuratorate, suggests that from the angle of joint crime, the identification of criminal groups can be used to solve the problem.

That is to say, if a judicial organ has confirmed that some suspects in the group have clear jurisdiction (such as the place of residence, network information sending place, etc.), the other suspects and facts can be controlled through the case.

At this point, the case does not need to consider the problem of the principal and accessory.

"This way has similar judicial interpretations for reference."

Zhu Lin said.

For example, this year, the Supreme People's court, the Supreme People's Procuratorate and the Ministry of Public Security issued the opinions on several issues applicable to the criminal cases of infringing intellectual property rights.

The relevant public security organs may file a case for investigation of the infringement of intellectual property rights committed by different criminal suspects and criminal gangs involved in the manufacture, storage, pportation and sale of infringing products of the same batch.

At present, the Yuhuatai District procuratorate is to solve this huge network fraud in this way.

"Cracking down on cyber crime and speeding up the legislation of electronic evidence is another key."

Gu Xiaoning said.

He pointed out that in traditional criminal cases, judicial organs rely mainly on personal evidence and material evidence to decide the case. In a large number of cyber crimes, witnesses, material evidence and documentary evidence are still important, but the role of electronic evidence is indispensable.

"Compared with traditional evidence, electronic evidence is not as intuitive, visible, and touching as human testimony or material evidence. It is different from traditional evidence in preservation, dissemination or perception, and it is extremely vulnerable to undetectable tampering or destruction, which poses a challenge to the traditional evidence system."

Because of the imperfection of the electronic evidence laws and regulations, it has caused many difficulties to the police, the evidence of the prosecution, the court sentencing and so on.

Gu Xiaoning believes that before the introduction of electronic evidence legislation, some of the problems facing the current electronic evidence collection must be clarifying the following two points:

First, we should clarify the main body of electronic evidence collection.

The main body of electronic evidence collection should be professional and technical personnel authorized by the state judicial organs, rather than those who understand most of them.

It includes the qualification of electronic evidence, the rules of appraisal, the procedure of appraisal, and the legal effect of appraisal.

Determining the subject of electronic evidence collection is the first step to ensure the legality of forensic evidence collection.

The two is to clarify the power of obtaining evidence from electronic evidence.

Because the electronic evidence is different from the traditional evidence, the power of judicial collection of traditional evidence, such as checking, duplicating and retrieving information related to the case, has not been fully applied to electronic evidence. The collection of electronic evidence should have more stringent authorization and licensing requirements, and the level of checks should be taken to ensure the legality of electronic evidence.

At the same time, it is necessary to stipulate the rules of network site investigation, including the qualification of network investigators, the inspection procedures and the requirements for inspection.