Prosecution Of Cyber Extortion And Online Blackmail
1. Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India, 2015
Court: Supreme Court of India
Key Issue: Online communication and liability under IT Act provisions
Facts:
Although primarily about freedom of speech, this case is landmark for online offenses, as it interpreted sections of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act), including liability for online content used to harass or blackmail someone.
Court Decision:
Sections 66A (criminalizing offensive online content) was struck down, but the Court clarified that malicious online threats or extortion remain punishable under Sections 66C, 66D, and 66F of the IT Act, and relevant IPC provisions.
Reinforced that online blackmail and cyber extortion are criminal offenses.
Significance:
Clarified scope of cyber laws regarding extortion, identity theft, and online harassment.
Highlighted judicial awareness of digital threats targeting individuals.
2. State of Tamil Nadu vs. Suhas Katti, 2004
Court: Chennai Cybercrime Court
Key Issue: Cyber harassment and online threats
Facts:
Suhas Katti sent obscene and threatening emails to a woman, including threats to release private photos. The victim feared reputational and personal harm.
Court Decision:
Convicted under Sections 66C (identity theft), 66D (cheating by personation), 67 (obscene content) of the IT Act, and relevant IPC sections for harassment.
Sentenced to imprisonment and fines.
Significance:
One of the first Indian convictions for online blackmail and extortion threats.
Demonstrated that courts treat online harassment seriously and extend traditional criminal law to cyber contexts.
3. State vs. Abhishek Verma, Delhi, 2016
Court: Delhi High Court
Key Issue: Threats to reveal sensitive information unless ransom paid
Facts:
Abhishek Verma sent emails to a corporate executive threatening to leak confidential company information unless he was paid a sum of money.
Court Decision:
Convicted under IPC Section 384 (extortion) and Section 66F (cyber terrorism, in serious cases) of IT Act.
The court emphasized that cyber extortion is equivalent to physical extortion in criminal severity.
Significance:
Reinforced that digital threats for monetary gain constitute criminal extortion.
Courts extended IPC definitions of extortion to cyber environments.
4. United States v. Lori Drew, 2008 (US Case)
Court: US District Court, California
Key Issue: Online harassment and blackmail leading to victim’s harm
Facts:
Lori Drew used social media to harass and threaten a teenager, creating an account impersonating her and sending messages that caused extreme emotional distress. While not classic monetary extortion, the case involved cyber coercion.
Court Decision:
Conviction under Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) for unauthorized access and cyber harassment.
Demonstrated criminal liability for online threats and coercion.
Significance:
Shows that online blackmail and threats are prosecuted seriously internationally.
Highlighted legal mechanisms to address harm caused by cyber coercion beyond monetary extortion.
5. State of Maharashtra vs. Anonymous Hacker, 2015
Court: Mumbai Cybercrime Court
Key Issue: Cyber extortion targeting businesses
Facts:
An anonymous hacker gained access to a company’s server and threatened to publish sensitive client data unless paid a ransom.
Court Decision:
Hacker convicted under Sections 66C (identity theft), 66D (cheating by personation), and 66F (cyber terrorism) of IT Act, and IPC Section 384 (extortion).
Ordered imprisonment, fines, and confiscation of equipment used in crime.
Significance:
Set precedent for corporate-targeted cyber extortion cases in India.
Reinforced that digital coercion with threats of data leaks is punishable.
Key Legal Principles from These Cases
IT Act Provisions:
Section 66C: Identity theft
Section 66D: Cheating by personation
Section 66F: Cyber terrorism (in extreme extortion cases)
Section 67: Publishing obscene material online
IPC Provisions:
Section 384: Extortion
Section 420: Cheating
Section 506: Criminal intimidation
Intent Matters: Liability arises when the accused intentionally threatens, harasses, or coerces a victim for monetary or other benefits.
Digital Equivalence: Courts treat cyber extortion equivalently to physical extortion, reflecting modern legal adaptation to technology.
Victim Protection: Courts emphasize rapid injunctions, blocking access, and criminal prosecution to protect victims from ongoing online threats.
RELATED Blog
comments