The Difference between the Offense of Deceiving and other Offenses with Fraudulent Feature

• Author: Monica Pocora
• Pages: 93-98

Legal Sciences in the New Millennium

93

The Difference between the Offenses of

Deceiving and other Offenses with Fraudulent Feature

Monica Pocora1

Abstract: Frequently in the judicial practice but also in the doctrine there have been difficulties in delimiting

the computer offense from the deceiving offense. Often this relationship was interpreted in the sense that it

was about two competing offenses affecting different social values - namely those of patrimonial type and

those referring to normal operation of information systems. The doctrine observes that with the techno logical

revolution, the opportunities to commit crimes again st patrimony have multiplied. Goods that are represented

or taken from information systems (electronic funds, deposits, etc.) have become targets of manipulation, as

the traditional forms of property. Such offenses usually are done by entering incorrect data into a system

through manipulation programs or other interference during processing. This article aims at in criminating any

act of free handling as in data processing with the intention to operate an illegal transfer of property. Such

offenses are usually achieved by entering incorrect data into a system th rough manipulation of programs or

other interference during processing data. This article aims at incriminating any act of manipulation without

the right in the data processing with the intention of operating an illegal transfer of property. (Dobrinoiu, et

al., 2012)

Keywords: act of manipulation; data processing; illegal transfer of property

The offense was provided in almost identical legislation in art. 49, Ch. III, Title III, Book I of

Law no. 161/2003 and in the new Criminal Code is provided by art. 249 with the following

content: “Insertion, modification or deletion of computer data, restricting access to such data

or preventing in any way the operation of a computer system, in order to obtain a financial

benefit for himself or another, if it has caused damage to a person”.

The relationship between the two crimes, especially under the new regulations falling within

the same legal object is very well captured in a decision of the High Court of Cassation and

Justice2. Having the value of principle in that decision, the court shows that the online

fictional sales of goods, achieved through platforms specialized in trading goods online,

causing prejudice to persons injured misled by the introduction of computer data on the

existence of property and determined in this way, to pay the price of nonexistent goods meet

the constitutive elements of the offense of computer fraud. In this case, they are not met also

the constituent elements of the offense of deceiving, since the crime of computer fraud is a

variant of the offense of deceiving committed in the virtual environment, and art. 49 of Law

no. 161/2003 (currently repealed and adopted in art. 249 Criminal Code) constitute the special

1 Associate P rofessor, PhD, Faculty of Law, “Danubius” University of Galati, Romania. Address: 3 Galati Blvd, 800654

Galati, Romania. Tel.: +40.372.361.102, fax: 40.372.361.290, Corresponding author: monicapocora@univ-danubius.ro.

2 I.C.C.J., Criminal Division, Decision no. 2106 of 14 June 2013, www.scj.ro.