“Ransomware” without extortion – legal experts have found that…

“Extortionists” without extortion – legal experts have found that in the current version of Art. 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation has become “plasticine” and is being used for other purposes. Participants of the XIV Russian Congress of Criminal Law, held at Moscow State University at the end of May, discussed law enforcement practice regarding the now popular article on extortion. Its use has attracted increased attention from lawyers in connection with high-profile criminal cases via telegram channels. In all these cases, the investigation qualifies the actions of representatives of TG channels as “demanding the transfer of someone else’s property with the threat of disseminating information discrediting the victim,” that is, as extortion under Part 3 of Art. 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. But in essence, such an interpretation goes against the letter of the law.

Professor of Law Law MIU HSE Doctor of Law Associate Professor Alexey Lyaskalo says directly: “When reading the available materials of criminal cases, I could not shake the feeling of the “threat of dissemination of information” artificially synthesized in them as a mandatory sign of extortion.” The professor gives a simple analogy with “the cart before the horse,” which means that the mere dissemination of “disgraceful information” before making a property claim against the victim does not constitute extortion.

Advertisement

In other words, investigators often “stretch” Art. 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation where it should not be. The elements of extortion have strict limits, and cases on TG channels go beyond these limits, breaking the very logic of criminal law.

Professor Lyaskalo also explained at the round table that in a situation where the victim himself offers a reward for removing negative content, there is no such mandatory sign of extortion as “illegal property demands.” That is, no one demands anything from anyone against his will. As Doctor of Law, Professor Yuri Pudovochkin noted, it is impossible to threaten the dissemination of disgraceful information that has already been disseminated. Professor Lyaskalo said the same thing: by agreeing with the construction of the “threat of continued dissemination of information,” we agree with the existence of an unrealized threat that never develops into action. It’s like threatening to wet a person who is already wet and sitting in water.

As for already existing criminal cases initiated due to the distorted application of Art. 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, then the discussion participants noted “It is better to avoid a judicial error, and to correct a correctable one.”