电子证据及其在中国的应用-ISPAC

ByProf.Dr.PIYongWuhanUniversityofChinaNewChinaCriminalLegislationagainstCybercrime

intheCommonInternet

AbstractCybercrimeinChinaChinacriminallegislationsagainstCybercrime I.ProvisionsonCybercrimeinChinacriminalLaw II.ChinacriminalprocedurelawonCybercrime III.ProvisionsonJurisdictionandInternationalCooperationC.Conclusion

InChina,asthedevelopmentofinformationtechnology,Cybercrimehasbeenchangingalongwiththetime.Chinamovedbacktothenormalroutein1980s,whichmadetheapplicationofComputerinChinalaterthanthatinthewestworld,sodidevenmuchmorelatetheapplicationofInternet.Before1994,mostofthecrimesviolatethecomputersystemwithoutnetworkorusethemasitstools.In1994,InternetenteredintoChina.ComputercrimesinChinabegintohavetwonewcharacteristics:InternetizationofcrimesCybercrimesineconomicfieldhappenedmuchmorefrequently.

CybercrimeinChinaA.CybercrimeinChina

CybercrimesinChinarushedintoInterneteconomyfieldandhasformedanindustrialchainwithdifferentdivisions.ManycriminalsusethenetworkresourcesoutsideChinatocommitCybercrime:over90%networksites,whichwereusedtocommittingfraud,phishing,pornographycrimesandInternetgambling,locatetheirserversystemoutsideChina.over70%Botnetcontrolsidesweresetupinforeigncountries.

Resource:StatisticsofCybercrimebyChinaMinistryofPublicSecurityin2010

AsCybercrimeinChinahasbeenchanging,ChinalegislationsonCybercrimewereamendedfrequently:In1994,firstlawoncomputercrime:Ordinanceonprotectingthesafetyofcomputersystem.

In1997,2000,2009ChinaCriminalLawwasamendedtoincreasenewCybercrimesIn2011ChinaSupremePeople’sCourtandSupremePeople’sProcuratorateissuedthejudicialinterpretationonCybercrime.ChinaCriminalProcedureLawresponsestoCybercrimeslowly.Thereisnorulesoncollectingelectronicevidenceoradmissibilityrulesrelatingtoelectronicevidence.Chinajudicialpracticegoesaheadofcriminalprocedurelaw.

NeitherChinamakeagreementoncooperationofcombatingCybercrimewithforeigncountries,norjoinanyinternationalconvention.

B.ChinacriminallegislationsonCybercrime

ProvisionsonCybercrimeinChinaCriminalLawFiveCybercrimeswereprescribed:illegalaccess:illegalinvadingthecomputersysteminthefieldsofStateaffairs,nationaldefenseconstructionorsophisticatedscienceandtechnology.

illegalobtaincomputerdata:illegalinvadingthecomputersystemthatisnotbelongtothecomputersystemdescribedaboveorusingothertechnicalmethodtoobtaincomputerdatainthecomputersystem.illegalcontrollcomputersystem:

illegalcontrollingthecomputersystem.providecomputerprogramortoolsforillegalaccessingorcontrollingcomputersystem:destructcomputersystem:destructingthefunctionsofcomputersystemorcomputerdatainthecomputersystem,whichresultsinthefailureofcomputersystem.

B.ChinacriminallegislationsonCybercrime

ThereisakindofCybercrimeinthefieldofChinanetworkeconomy,thecriminalstransfer,purchaseorhelptosellillegalacquireddataorcontrolofcomputersystem,inordertoseekillegalinterests.ThecriminalsshallbeconvictedandpunishedaccordingtoprovisioninArticle312ofChinaPenalCode,whichprescribesthecrimeofconcealingillegallyacquiredgoods.IftheISPoradvertisingcompanywillfullyprovideforcriminalsofCybercrimesthetechnicalsupportorfinancialhelp,theyshallbeconvictedandpunishedastheaccomplice.

B.ChinacriminallegislationsonCybercrime

ResultofcomparativeresearchbetweenChinaandEuropeanUnion:TheaforementionedprovisionsreachesandgoesbeyondthestandardsetbyCouncilofEuropeanUnionFrameworkDecisiononattacksagainstinformationsystems,TheyreachmostofrequirementsofCouncilofEuropeConventiononCybercrime.

B.ChinacriminallegislationsonCybercrime

II.ChinacriminalprocedurelawonCybercrimeThereisnoindependentcriminalevidencelawinChina.Onlyfewjudicialinterpretationprescribetherulesonelectronicevidence.forexample,ProvisionsontheproblemsrelatedtoexamineandidentifyevidenceinthedeathpenaltycasesProvisionsonthejudicialproblemsrelatedtoInternetgamblingcases

Therulesinotherlawfieldsuchascivillaw,administrativelawandjudicialinterpretationsinfactplaytheroleofinstructingthepolicetocollectelectronicevidenceandinfluencingthedecisionofJudge.

B.ChinacriminallegislationsonCybercrime

1.RulesoncollectingelectronicevidenceOnthemeasureofretentionofelectronicdata,ChinaInternetregulationsprescribethatISPshouldrecordandsaveelectronicdataandprovidethemtotheauthoritiesiftheyarerequired.

Itisnotacriminalinvestigativemeasure,butitplayskeyroleintheprocessofinvestigationtoCybercrime

Onthemeasureofcopyinganddetainingelectronicdata,nownewjudicialinterpretationin2010prescribedspecialmeasurestocopy,collectandpreserveelectronicdata.Before2010electronicdatawastreatedasvideoandvoicedataandwasdetainedaccordingtotherulesprescribedtovideoandvoicedata.

B.ChinacriminallegislationsonCybercrime

Onthemeasureofrealtimecollectingelectronicdata,thedraftofnewamendmentofChinaCriminalProcedureLaw,whichwillbepassedin2012,prescribedelectronicevidenceandtechnicalinvestigativemeasures,whichincludetheelectronicsurveillance.NowthereisnomeasureofrealtimecollectingelectronicdatainChinacriminalprocedurelaw,butelectronicsurveillanceisusedinthecriminalinvestigationofseriouscrimes.

Theelectronicdatathatiscollectedbyusingelectronicsurveillancecannotbeusedasevidenceinthecourt,becauseitisnottheevidenceprescribedinthecriminalprocedurelaw,sotheycanonlybeusedtofindotherevidencesuchasoralstatement.

TheprovisionsoftheDraftaresimilartotherelatedlegislationofforeigncountriesandtheConventiononCybercrime.

B.ChinacriminallegislationsonCybercrime

Onthemeasureofproductionorder,Chineselegislationsprescribethattheunitsandpersonsshouldtruthfullyprovideevidence.TheseprovisionsaresimilartotherelatedregulationsintheConventiononCybercrime.2.RulesonadoptingelectronicevidenceNowtherearenorulesonadoptingelectronicevidence.Chinesejudgesadopttheelectronicevidenceaccordingtothecommonrulesonevidence.Onlyfewnewjudicialinterpretationprescribedtheprincipleandrulesonthelegalityoftheelectronicevidence.Neitheristhereruleofprobativeforceofelectronicevidence,judgesmakefreedecisionontheprobativeforceofelectronicevidence

Rulesonprobativeforceofelectronicdatainotherlawfieldaffectthechinesejudgestomaketheirdecision.

B.ChinacriminallegislationsonCybercrime

SummaryChinacriminalprocedurallegislationonelectronicevidencedevelopslowly.InthecasesofCybercrime,thespecialregulationsintheChinacriminalprocedurallaw,administrativelawandjudicialinterpretationplaythesimilarroleastherelatedproceduralprovisionsintheConventiononCybercrime,andinmajorityparttheyarealreadyinharmonywiththem.Ontheaspectoftheforce,operabilityandbalancebetweencontrollingcrimeandprotectingcivilright,Chinacriminallegislationstillshouldbeimproved.

B.ChinacriminallegislationsonCybercrime

III.ProvisionsonJurisdictionandInternationalCooperationTherearenospecialprovisionsonjurisdictionofCybercrimeinChinaPenalCode,forCybercrimeArticle6toArticle12ofChinaPenalCodeareapplied.

IftheplaceoftheactortheconsequenceofCybercrimeisinChina,ChinaPenalCodeshouldbeapplied.IfChineseoutsideofChinacommitsCybercrimeandthehighestpenaltyofthecrimeislessthan3years,ChinaPenalCodemaynotbeapplied.ChinalegislationisinharmonywiththeArticle22ofConventiononCybercrimeandArticle10ofFrameworkDecisionmentionedabove,whichmakesurethatCybercrimeinChinacanberuledabsolutely.

.

B.ChinacriminallegislationsonCybercrime

NowthereisnotagreementbetweenChinaandforeigncountriesorinternationaltreatythatprescribedthehandlingmechanismontheCybercrimecases,inwhichmorethanonecountryhavethejurisdiction.

OntheaspectofjudicialcooperationonCybercrime,thereisnotspecialjudicialcooperativemechanismbetweenChinaandforeigncountriesorinternationalorganization.

InspecialtransnationalCybercrimecases,Chinacriminalinvestigativeauthoritieshavecooperatedwithforeignauthoritiesinthefieldofcriminalinvestigationandhelp.From2004to2010Chinaauthorityhelpmore40countriesinmorethan700Cybercrimecases.

B.ChinacriminallegislationsonCybercrime

ICybercrimebecomesthecommonthreatoftheworld,thatmakestheharmonizationoflegislationofallcountriesnecessary.ThelegislationstandardsetbyFrameworkDecisionmentionedabovebecomesthebasicstandardwhichmanycountry’slegislationshavealreadyreached,ConventiononCybercrimerepresentsthehigherlegislationstandard,sothecountrieswhoreachedthelaterstandardareless.TheprogressofharmonizationofcriminallegislationagainstCybercrimecannotbequick.

C.Conclusion

CoEisaregionalinternationalorganizationandhaslimitedeffectonthecountriesoutsideofEuropean.ConventiononCybercrimeisonlyaresponsetoCybercrimesinthecountrieswhoparticipatedinthedraftingoftheconvention.ConditionsandprogramsarehardtoachieveaftertheconventionbecameeffectiveThosecountries,whichareoutsideofEuropeandhavenottherelationshipofallywithEuropeancountries,forexampleChinaandRussiaetc.,arenotthepartiesoftheconvention.CoEcannotsolelyleadtheprogressofharmonizationofcriminallegislationsagainstCybercrime,needworktogetherwithworldwideinternationalorganizationsuchasUN,topushthefar-reachingprojectofharmonizationofcriminallegislationandjudicialcooperationsystemagainstCybercrime.

C.Conclusion

IIChinaisinthecommonInternetworldandfacesthesamechallengefromCybercrime.NowChinaPenallawonCybercrimereachesandgoesbeyondthestandardsetbyCoEUFrameworkDecision,andinmostareareachestherequirementofstandardsetbyConventiononCybercrime.Ontheaspectofcriminalprocedurelaw,nowbesidesthemeasureofexpeditedpreservationofstoredelectronicdata,thelegislationofothermeasureoncollectingelectronicevidencewillsoonreachtherequirementofConven