LEGAL PROTECTIONS FOR VICTIMS OF CYBER BLACKMAIL IN THE REPUBLIC OF IRAQ, THE UNITED STATES, AND MALAYSIA

Nazura Abdul Manap; Omar Aljuboori

doi:10.33102/mjsl.vol12no2.657

Authors

Nazura Abdul Manap Faculty of Law, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
Omar Aljuboori Faculty of Law, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia / Member of the Iraqi Bar Association, 10069 Alkarada, Baghdad, Iraq https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7106-9844

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33102/mjsl.vol12no2.657

Keywords:

Cyber blackmail, Penal Code, victim, phenomenon, legal

Abstract

Cyber blackmail is a crime wherein an individual or corporation threatens to release a victim's private data on social media. As it is a type of crime that expands as technology improves, the rules governing it must be regularly updated and evaluated as and when the crime changes to prevent these rules from becoming obsolete. Multiple amendments must be made to the Republic of Iraq's legislation to enable the country to punish individuals who exploit victims of cyber blackmail. Therefore, this study examines the efficacy of cyber blackmail law by discussing the characteristics of cyber blackmail, the contemporary issues surrounding it, and the relevant national legislation and regulations governing it in Iraq, the United States (U.S.), and Malaysia. Analytical and descriptive approaches were used to define, examine, and analyse the issue from all angles. As a result, Iraqi lawmakers were observed to lack a sincere commitment to passing a potent law targeting cyber blackmail, either through revisions to the Penal Code or by endorsing the draft of the Cybercrime Bill (2011). An analysis of the offense's attributes revealed that its central feature is extortion, coupled with elements of criminal intimidation designed to instill fear in the victim, compelling them to yield to the devious perpetrator's malevolent intentions. The article concludes by offering suggestions to stakeholders on enhancing their approach to addressing this problem.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abdulhameed, R. S. (2021). Crimes of threats and cyber extortion through social media: A comparative study. Review of International Geographical Education Online, 11(12), 1022-1033.

Act 574. (1936). Malaysian Legislation, Chapter XVII, Section 383.

Act 574. (1936). Malaysian Legislation, Chapter XVII, Section 384.

Act 574. (1936). Malaysian Legislation, Chapter XVII, Section 385.

Act 574. (1936). Malaysian Legislation, Chapter XVII, Section 386.

Act 574. (1936). Malaysian Legislation, Chapter XVII, Section 387.

Act 574. (1936). Malaysian Legislation, Chapter XVII, Section 388.

Act 574. (1936). Malaysian Legislation, Chapter XVII, Section 389.

Act 574. (1936). Malaysian Legislation, Chapter XXII, Section 503.

Act 574. (1936). Malaysian Legislation, Chapter XXII, Section 507.

Act 588. (1998). Malaysian Legislation, Part X, Chapter 1, Section 229.

Act 588. (1998). Malaysian Legislation, Part X, Chapter 2, Section 233.

Alisawee, S. (2019). The crime of cyber extortion (A comparative study). [Unpublished master's thesis]. University of Al-Qadisiyah.

Cybercrime Bill 2011 (Iraq)

Doyle, C. (2014). “Cybercrime: An overview of the federal computer fraud and abuse statute and related federal criminal laws”. Congressional Research Service. https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc461970/m1/1/high_res_d/97-1025_2014Oct15.pdf

Hussein, O. A., Manap, N. A., & Rahman, M. R. A. (2022). Cyber blackmail crime against women - a case study. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 6(3), 6882-6893.

Iraqi Court of Appeal v Ahmed, 1588/C (2021).

Islam, M. Z., Zulhuda, S., Affandi, N. H. M. B., & Shafy, M. A. (2020). Ensuring safe cyberspace for children: An analysis of the legal implications of social media usage in Malaysia and Singapore. International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM) Law Journal, 28(1), 395-413. https://doi.org/10.31436/iiumlj.v28i(s1).591

Mintzer, R. (2013, December 18). “Extortion vs. blackmail: What’s the difference?”. Mintzer Law. https://www.mintzerlaw.com/general-law/extortion-vs-blackmail-whats-the-difference

Penal Code No. 111. (1969). Iraqi Legislation, Chapter 2, Section 3, Article 430.

Penal Code No. 111. (1969). Iraqi Legislation, Chapter 2, Section 3, Article 431.

Penal Code No. 111. (1969). Iraqi Legislation, Chapter 2, Section 3, Article 432.

Penal Code No. 111. (1969). Iraqi Legislation, Chapter 2, Section 4, Article 433.

Penal Code No. 111. (1969). Iraqi Legislation, Chapter 2, Section 4, Article 437.

Penal Code No. 111. (1969). Iraqi Legislation, Chapter 3, Section 2, Article 452.

Penal Code No. 111. (1969). Iraqi Legislation, Chapter 3, Section 4, Article 456.

Public Prosecutor v Abdul Hafiz Rahim, 6 MLJU 533 (2018).

Public Prosecutor v Chang Ye Siong, 1 MJL 156 (2019).

Public Prosecutor v Jamilah Othman, 6 MJL 509 (2014).

Public Prosecutor v K. Theepan Raj, 1 MLJU 1178 (2021).

Public Prosecutor v Kuan Soon Min, 1 MLJ 1 (2019).

Public Prosecutor v Lum Gah Wai, 3 MLJ 228 (2014).

Public Prosecutor v Mohamad Fazrul Mohd Fuzi, 4 MLJ 494 (2021).

Public Prosecutor v Mohd Hidayat Abd Ghani @ Mokhtar, 11 MLJ 527 (2014).

Public Prosecutor v Mohd Zamri Mohd Yunus, MLJU 1501 (2019).

Public Prosecutor v Muhamad Shukri Kassim, 7 MLJ 845 (2011).

Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Faez Aiman Toiban, 8 MLJ 777 (2017).

Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Nor Aliff Basir, 6 MLJ 303 (2017).

Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Shazarul Ikhmal Rospisham, 4 MLJ 246 (2016).

Public Prosecutor v Teng Chee Sing, MLJU 865 (2021).

Public Prosecutor v Wan Azuan W Ismail, MLJU 2274 (2022).

Ramírez, J. M., & García-Segura, L. A. (2017). Cyberspace: Risks and benefits for society, security and development. Springer.

Stern, H. J. (1971). Prosecutions of local political corruption under the Hobbs Act: The unnecessary distinction between bribery and extortion. Seton Hall Law Review, 3(1), 1-17.

Sulkowski, A. J. (2007). Cyber-extortion: Duties and liabilities related to the elephant in the server room. Illinois Journal of Law, Technology & Policy, 1, 101-144. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.955962

United States Code. (1948). American Legislation, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 41, Section 871.

United States Code. (1948). American Legislation, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 41, Section 873.

United States Code. (1948). American Legislation, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 41, Section 874.

United States Code. (1948). American Legislation, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 41, Section 875.

United States Code. (1948). American Legislation, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 41, Section 876.

United States Code. (1948). American Legislation, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 41, Section 877.

United States Code. (1948). American Legislation, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 41, Section 878.

United States Code. (1948). American Legislation, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 41, Section 879.

United States Code. (1948). American Legislation, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 41, Section 880.

United States Code. (1948). American Legislation, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 47, Section 1030.

United States of America v Antonio Fontana, 869 F.3d 464 (2017).

United States of America v Olayinka Ilumsa Sunmola, 887 F.3d 830 (2018).

Vasiu, I., & Vasiu, L. (2020). Cyber extortion and threats: Analysis of the United States case law. Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology, 14(1), 3-28. https://doi.org/10.5817/mujlt2020-1-1

Waheeda, F. (2015). Legislating for cybercrimes in the Maldives: Challenges and prospects. International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM) Law Journal, 23(3), 415-438. https://doi.org/10.31436/iiumlj.v23i3.183