×

Cookie Consent

This website uses cookies or similar technologies, to enhance your browsing experience and provide personalized recommendations. By continuing to use our website, you agree to our Privacy Policy

Digital Object Identifier
doi.org/10.36475/L.A.W.14
Abbreviated Title
L.A.W.
Issue
Online version
Print version

In This Article

    Abstract - Journal Law and World

    Volume 8, issue 3

    Analysis of Procedural Problems in Cybercrime Investigations

    Authors: Irakli Nadareishvili1,

    Irakli Nadareishvili

    Doctor of Law, Affiliated Associated professor of Caucasus International University Head of The Department to Investigate Offenses Committed in the Course of Legal Proceedings The Office of The General Prosecutor of Georgia

    Email: inadareishvili@pog.gov.ge


    Shota Kakulia2

    Shota Kakulia

    Master of Law, Prosecutor of The Department to Investigate Offenses Committed in the Course of Legal Proceedings

    Email: shota.kakulia@gmail.com



    Affiliation: Doctor of Law, Affiliated Associated professor of Caucasus International University Head of The Department to Investigate Offenses Committed in the Course of Legal Proceedings The Office of The General Prosecutor of Georgia1, Master of Law, Prosecutor of The Department to Investigate Offenses Committed in the Course of Legal Proceedings2

    Abstract: The approach used to investigate cybercrime in developed nations is examined in this article, along with the innovations that might be implemented in Georgia to ensure successful investigations. Detailing the procedures outlined under the Budapest Convention on Computer Crimes, attention is given to the procedural issues that crop up while gathering and presenting electronic evidence in criminal investigations. The conventions individual articles are examined, including those that deal with information requests, and a comparison between the conventions legal provisions and the standards incorporated into Georgian law is made. The article examines the practice of collaboration between developed country law enforcement bodies and Internet service providers. The absence of computer data classification in Georgian law is highlighted, which results in the existence of a single, all-encompassing rule for all forms of electronic information. The paper also covers court rulings on the admissibility of electronic evidence and offers advice on whether it would be wise to clarify or improve the criminal procedure laws. The article explains the need for varied time limits and tactics for getting and maintaining information from internet service providers based on the classification of cybercrimes into distinct crime categories, such as serious, particularly serious, and crimes against national security

    Keywords: Budapest Convention, Preservation of Computer Data, Requesting Information, Digital Evidence, Cybercrime,


    Language: GE

    views: 10745
    Download
    1. Cryptocurrency-Related Cybercrime Types and Threats
      2.




    BIBLIOGRAPHY:

    Legal Acts:

    1. “Convention on Cybercrime” (2001). Articles 2 – 5 and 16 – 21, Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/1680081561>(In English)
    2. Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia (2009). Article 136, Paragraph I, (13.04.2022 Edition). Legislative Herald of Georgia https://www.matsne.gov.ge/document/view/90034?publication=143 (In Georgian)
    3. Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia (2009). Article 136, Paragraph I, (21.06.2022 Edition). Legislative Herald of Georgia https://www.matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/90034?publication=146> (In Georgian)

      4. Court Orders:

    4. Tbilisi Court of Appeals order №1გ/548-16 (2016). “Order on inadmissability of evidence”. Tbilisi Court of Appeals http://library.court.ge/judgements/92352016-04-04.pdf (In Georgian)
    5. Tbilisi Court of Appeals order №1გ/960-17 (2017). “Order on inadmissability of evidence”. Tbilisi Court of Appeals http://library.court.ge/judgements/5582017-07-25.pdf> (In Georgian)

      6. Used Literature:

    6. Council of Europe (2001). “Explanatory Report to the Convention on Cybercrime”, Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/16800cce5b (In English)
    7. Kunappu. M., Jurich. M. (2017). Report on Georgia, “Draft legislation supplementing and amending various issues related to cybercrime and electronic evidence”. Cybercrime Convention Committee bureau and Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/3608-20-georgia-cybercrime-law-reform-review-final-19-april2017/168076be28 (In English)
    8. Cybercrime Convention Committee (2014). “Rules on obtaining subscriber information”. Report adopted by the T-CY at its plenary, Directorate General of Human Rights and Rule of Law, Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/16802e7ad1> (In English)
    9. Council of Europe (2008). “Cooperation between law enforcement and Internet service providers against cybercrime”, Common guidelines. Cybercrime Programme Office of the Council of Europe (C-PROC), Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/2088-33-law-enforcement-isp-guidelines-2020/1680a091a (In English)
    10. Georgian National Communications Commission, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Internet Service Providers, (2010). “Memorandum of Understanding between Georgian law enforcement and Internet providers based on the principles of cooperation in the field of cybercrime” https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=09000016802fe136> (In English)

    Notes:

    1. Council of Europe (2001). “Explanatory Report to the Convention on Cybercrime”, Council of Europe. p. 1. https://rm.coe.int/16800cce5b> [Last access: 9 September, 2022]
    2. “Convention on Cybercrime” (2001). Articles 2 – 5 and 16 – 21, Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/1680081561> [Last access: 9 September, 2022]
    3. “Convention on Cybercrime” (2001). Article 18, Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/1680081561> [Last access: 9 September, 2022]
    4. Council of Europe (2001). “Explanatory Report to the Convention on Cybercrime”, Council of Europe. P. 29. https://rm.coe.int/16800cce5b [Last access: 9 September, 2022]
    5. Legislative Herald of Georgia, Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia (Date of Issuing: 09.10.2009, Article 136, Paragraph I, 13.04.2022 Edition (Last Accessed 09.09.2022) https://www.matsne.gov.ge/document/view/90034?publication=143> [Last access: 9 September, 2022]
    6. Legislative Herald of Georgia, Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia (Date of Issuing: 09.10.2009, Article 136, Paragraph I, 21.06.2022 Edition (Last Accessed 09.09.2022) https://www.matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/90034?publication=146> [Last access: 9 September, 2022]
    7. “Convention on Cybercrime” (2001). Article 18, Paragraph 3, Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/16800cce5b [Last access: 9 September, 2022]
    8. Kunappu. M., Jurich. M. (2017). Report on Georgia, “Draft legislation supplementing and amending various issues related to cybercrime and electronic evidence”. Cybercrime Convention Committee bureau and Council of Europe. p. 7. < [Last access: 9 September, 2022]
    9. Cybercrime Convention Committee (2014). “Rules on obtaining subscriber information”. Report adopted by the T-CY at its plenary, Directorate General of Human Rights and Rule of Law, Council of Europe. pp. 17-20. https://rm.coe.int/16802e7ad1 [Last access: 9 September, 2022]
    10. Council of Europe (2001). “Explanatory Report to the Convention on Cybercrime”, Council of Europe. p. 29. https://rm.coe.int/16800cce5b [Last access: 9 September, 2022]
    11. “Convention on Cybercrime” (2001). Article 16, Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/1680081561 [Last access: 9 September, 2022]
    12. “Convention on Cybercrime” (2001). Article 29, Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/1680081561 [Last access: 9 September, 2022]
    13. Council of Europe (2001). “Explanatory Report to the Convention on Cybercrime”, Council of Europe. pp. 25-26. https://rm.coe.int/16800cce5b [Last access: 9 September, 2022]
    14. Council of Europe (2008). “Cooperation between law enforcement and Internet service providers against cybercrime”, Common guidelines. Cybercrime Programme Office of the Council of Europe (C-PROC), Council of Europe. p. 17 https://rm.coe.int/2088-33-law-enforcement-isp-guidelines-2020/1680a091a7 [Last access: 9 September, 2022]
    15. Council of Europe (2008). “Cooperation between law enforcement and Internet service providers against cybercrime”, Common guidelines. Cybercrime Programme Office of the Council of Europe (C-PROC), Council of Europe. p. 18. https://rm.coe.int/2088-33-law-enforcement-isp-guidelines-2020/1680a091a7 [Last access: 9 September, 2022]
    16. Georgian National Communications Commission, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Internet Service Providers, (2010). “Memorandum of Understanding between Georgian law enforcement and Internet providers based on the principles of cooperation in the field of cybercrime”. pp. 2-3. https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=09000016802fe136 [Last access: 9 September, 2022]
    17. Council of Europe (2008). “Cooperation between law enforcement and Internet service providers against cybercrime”, Common guidelines. Cybercrime Programme Office of the Council of Europe (C-PROC), Council of Europe. pp. 17 – 19 https://rm.coe.int/2088-33-law-enforcement-isp-guidelines-2020/1680a091a7 [Last access: 9 September, 2022]
    18. Tbilisi Court of Appeals order №1გ/548-16 (2016). “Order on inadmissability of evidence”. Tbilisi Court of Appeals. http://library.court.ge/judgements/92352016-04-04.pdf [Last access: 9 September, 2022]
    19. Tbilisi Court of Appeals order №1გ/960-17 (2017). “Order on inadmissability of evidence”. Tbilisi Court of Appeals http://library.court.ge/judgements/5582017-07-25.pdf [Last access: 9 September, 2022]
    Publication Fee
    Free-of-charge
    Editor in Chief
    Ioseb Kelenjeridze
    Publishing Language
    English
    Georgian

    dealSeal

    Copyright ©2022 All rights reserved