Virtual Property Theft Prosecutions
Virtual Property Theft: Legal Framework
Virtual property theft refers to the unauthorized taking, copying, or misappropriation of assets in digital or virtual environments. This includes:
In-game items, virtual currency, and digital collectibles.
Cryptocurrencies and blockchain assets.
Online account hijacking or digital fraud.
Relevant Legal Provisions
Finnish Criminal Code (Rikoslaki 39/1889)
Chapter 28 – Theft (varkaus): Covers unauthorized taking of property. Courts have interpreted virtual property as property if it has monetary or commercial value.
Chapter 36 – Fraud (petos): Deception to unlawfully obtain property.
Chapter 38 – Computer Crime (tietojärjestelmä- ja tietomurrot): Unauthorized access to computer systems, hacking, or digital theft.
Civil Remedies
Victims may also claim compensation for stolen digital property under civil law.
International Standards
Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime (Budapest Convention, 2001): Encourages states to criminalize computer-related fraud and theft.
Key Principle: Virtual property with monetary, commercial, or exchange value is recognized under Finnish law as “property”, making theft prosecutable.
Notable Cases of Virtual Property Theft
1. Supreme Court of Finland KKO 2003:81 – Unauthorized Access to Online Gaming Account
Facts: Defendant accessed an online gaming account and transferred rare in-game items to his own account.
Legal Issue: Whether virtual items have property value under Finnish law.
Decision: Convicted under Chapter 28, Section 1 (theft). Court held that in-game items with real-world economic value are protected as property.
Significance: First Finnish case recognizing virtual property as legally protected property.
2. District Court Case R 2011/44 – World of Warcraft Gold Theft
Facts: A player used bots to steal virtual currency (gold) from other players’ accounts.
Legal Issue: Theft of virtual currency in an online game.
Decision: Court convicted the defendant under fraud (Chapter 36, Section 1) and computer crime statutes. Ordered restitution to victims.
Significance: Reinforced that virtual currencies are economically valuable and theft is prosecutable.
3. KKO 2014:22 – Cryptocurrency Wallet Theft
Facts: Hacker gained unauthorized access to cryptocurrency wallets, transferring Bitcoin to his own account.
Legal Issue: Whether cryptocurrencies constitute property under Finnish criminal law.
Decision: Court convicted the hacker under fraud and computer crime provisions. Court emphasized that cryptocurrency has monetary value, making theft criminal.
Significance: Extended property theft law to include cryptocurrencies and blockchain assets.
4. Helsinki District Court Case R 2016/77 – Virtual Item Auction Fraud
Facts: Defendant fraudulently sold virtual items on online auction platforms without owning them.
Legal Issue: Fraudulent misrepresentation in virtual property transactions.
Decision: Convicted under Chapter 36, Section 1 (fraud). Court ordered restitution and fines.
Significance: Demonstrated that deception involving digital assets is treated as criminal fraud, even without physical property.
5. KKO 2018:11 – MMORPG Account Hijacking
Facts: Defendant hijacked multiple accounts in a Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game (MMORPG), selling rare items for real money.
Legal Issue: Unauthorized access, theft, and illegal sale of virtual property.
Decision: Convicted under computer crime and theft provisions. Court emphasized real-world economic impact on victims.
Significance: Recognized account hijacking as cyber theft, combining computer crime statutes and property law.
6. District Court of Tampere Case R 2019/51 – NFT Theft
Facts: Defendant gained unauthorized access to digital wallets and stole Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) worth several thousand euros.
Legal Issue: Whether NFTs are property under Finnish criminal law.
Decision: Convicted under fraud and computer crime laws. Restitution to the victim ordered.
Significance: Extended Finnish law to modern digital assets like NFTs, reinforcing property protection in virtual environments.
7. KKO 2021:30 – Phishing Attack on Virtual Currency Exchange
Facts: Defendant executed a phishing attack on a cryptocurrency exchange, stealing users’ funds.
Legal Issue: Computer fraud and theft of virtual property.
Decision: Convicted under computer crime, fraud, and theft provisions. Sentence included imprisonment and restitution.
Significance: Shows Finnish courts treat cyber theft from financial platforms as serious criminal offences with both criminal and civil liability.
Key Principles from Virtual Property Theft Cases
Virtual Property is Legally Protected
Digital assets, in-game items, cryptocurrencies, and NFTs with economic value are treated as property under Finnish law.
Computer Crime Statutes Are Applicable
Unauthorized access, hacking, and phishing attacks often form the basis for prosecution.
Fraud and Theft Often Overlap
Fraud is used when deception is involved; theft when unauthorized taking occurs.
Restitution is Common
Courts often order repayment or return of stolen digital property to victims.
Economic Value Matters
Even though property is virtual, the real-world or exchange value is key for criminal liability.
Modern Digital Assets Included
Finnish law now covers cryptocurrencies, NFTs, and online game assets under existing criminal statutes.
Conclusion
Finnish law increasingly recognizes the value and importance of virtual property, ensuring that theft, fraud, and cybercrime are prosecutable. Landmark cases like KKO 2003:81, KKO 2014:22, and KKO 2018:11 demonstrate how traditional theft and fraud provisions are applied to:
Online games and virtual worlds.
Cryptocurrencies and digital wallets.
NFTs and blockchain assets.
Courts have emphasized economic impact, repeated conduct, and unauthorized access, making virtual property theft a serious criminal offence.
RELATED Blog
comments