Elements of the original criminal contribution to electronic banking crimes and their methods

Abstract

The essence of the original contribution is the executive actions that make up the material element of the crime, and therefore there is no dispute after that if there are multiple perpetrators or one person alone carries out the crime. Whoever contributes to any action that falls within the actions that make up the material element is considered an original and direct contributor to its implementation and will be held accountable. As if he committed it himself, the moral perpetrator is the one who carried out the crime, but through someone else. Because the third party used to commit the crime - for a reason attributed to the person of this third party - such as lacking capacity or good faith, the moral actor cannot be considered an accomplice in this case because without his contribution, the crime would not have occurred in the first place. Therefore, he is considered a moral actor and his contribution to the crime is an original, direct contribution. The condition for achieving the contribution to electronic banking crimes is the multiplicity of perpetrators in a group with an organizational structure working to obtain profit or financial benefit, whether directly or indirectly. The intent to overlap is the mental bond that brings together the contributors, and through it the moral unity of the crime is achieved. The similarity of the intent in its general sense among the perpetrators is not enough to consider them contributors to a single crime. Rather, what gives unity to the crime is the intention of each of them to intervene in its commission, and the intent of the overlap is achieved. With two elements available, The shareholder’s knowledge that his action contributes with the actions of his colleagues to the commission of the crime, that is: assaulting the right protected by the law, and the will that directs him to commit his action and the actions of the rest of the shareholders, and achieve the illegal result. Accordingly, we propose in electronic banking crimes, The general rule stipulated in Article (50/1), which punishes the accomplice with the penalty for the crime that occurred, given that the accomplice’s criminality is derived from the perpetrator’s criminality. We suggest that the general criminal intent is sufficient for the crime of illegal entry to occur, and the presence of the specific criminal intent is not required for the crime to occur.