Cyber Crime - Identity Theft

Identity Theft can be described as one pretending to be someone else and misusing that identity. It is a crime to do so, but it is not a new crime. What is new however, if the way one's identity is stolen, and where the identity is misused.

Historically people would pretend to be someone else and (for example) walk into a shop to purchase an item using the credit of another. But now, the new place to steal one's identity is in the Internet.

The Internet in recent times have seen many cases of Identity Thefts. People receiving e-mails asking for your name and bank account no is a common way to steal your identity. These e-mails are hoax and one must be wary when receiving such a request.

Another recent problem is phising. When surfing and "reaching" a website, be more careful as that website may not be the website you think it is. Classic cases are website phising for your e-mail address.

As e-commerce grows, and Internet quickly turning into the main method of registration etc, registering one's identity on the Internet will be the conduit for people to register oneself for more and more things. Things like buying stuff, confirming air tickets etc etc, can all be done through the internet.

The current laws in Malaysia to stem out Identity theft, in our view is still lacking. TheCommunication & Multimedia Act does not have specific provisions to deal with this problems, though in some of my personal meetings with Officers from Malaysian Communication & Multimedia Commission (MCMC) & Cyber Security; the people in charge of policing the Internet in Malaysia; are well aware of this problem and are looking into this.

In the interim, we share some interesting website for your knowledge and further reading on this area of Information Technology Law.

- News of an Ivy League Graduate who was seduced by money stolen from using other people's identity.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,451944,00.html

- An American view on Identity Theft

http://www.ncsl.org/IssuesResearch/BankingInsuranceFinancialServices/IdentityTheftStateStatutes/tabid/12538/Default.aspx

- A specific website for Identity Theft from UK

https://www.identitytheft.org.uk/

- A Malaysian Context

http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Sunday/LearningCurve/20080419163016/Article/index_html

Cyber Crime - Computer Crimes Act 1997

The Computer Crimes Act 1997, is amongst the few Statutes on Cyber Crime.

Under Section 3 CCA 1997, any person who secures access (hacking) without authority can be liable for an offence, which carries the punishment of :-

a. Fine not more than RM50,000, or;

b. Imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years, or;

c. both.

Section 4 CCA makes it an offence if a person commits an offence under S3 above; but this time with intention to commit fraud or act dishonestly (hacking with intent to commit fraud etc). The penalty?

a. Fine not more than RM150,000;

b. Imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or

c. both.

Section 5 CCA relates to offences of carrying out an act which will lead to the modification of computer contents. Basically this can be described as the Computer Virus offence. If you send a virus to someone else, you may be guilty of this offence.

S5 carries the penalty of:-

a. Fine not more than RM100,000

b. imprisonment of not more than 7 years or both

If a person causes the modification as per S5 above but with intent to commit an offence(s ) under Penal Code; the penalty is enhanced to:-

a. Fine not more than RM150,000

b. Imprisonment of not more than 10 years, or both.

Section 6 CCA makes it an offence to pass on a code or password to a Computer, to an unauthorised person. You can be imposed a fine of RM25,000 or imprisonment of not more than 3 years.

Look out for more blogging on these offences.

My Experience as an Intern at RWL (now known as RWY) - Yip XiaoHeng

The past 3 months have been a very good one for me. The 3 months internship program at Richard Wee Lopez (RWL) was a memorable one for me, and I will surely miss the moments I spent in the firm with the partners, clerk and other interns. I must say that I made the right choice to come back to this firm again this year because I learnt so much. I am also blessed to have masters who are so willing to teach me even though they are busy with their everyday work.

The moments of working, playing, shopping and eating together will always be cherished in my heart, unforgettable moments I should say. The firm is like one big family, which encompasses of people of differing cultures and styles but we could all work under one roof and make things happen.

I learnt to do everyday clerical work in the firm, on top of that, I was involved with legal work such as drafting letters of demand, filing of suits and cause papers, preparing affidavits, preparing bundles of authorities for a full trial, researching important point of laws and case laws, preparing for a plea in mitigation and so much more which would go on and on. Meetings with clients were interesting too; it was a chance to meet people from all walks of life. Not forgetting, I got to travel along with my master, Mr Richard for a criminal trial in Marang, Terengganu. It was an eye-opening experience to visit the other side of the Peninsular of Malaysia. I would definitely remember the trips we made there and the moments we spent in the airport waiting for our flight back.

Besides learning legal stuff, I must say that I have learnt to be a better person too. The optimism of Mr Richard, Mr Sunil’s calmness and Ms Karen’s hardworking attitude, will I try to emulate.

Well, to conclude, I would say it was really a wonderful and memorable experience working in RWL.

By Yip Xiaoheng

Cyber Crime

Cyber Crimes would probably be the new frontier in policing crime, in the near future. For over 15 years now, Lawyers have mention that Cyber Space will be the new battle ground to stamp out criminal activities, and that comment is still not out of line, after all these years.

With internet becoming the new 'necessity' in modern life, the need to police and stamp out criminal activities in cyber space becomes more acute by the day.

In Malaysia, there are a few Statutes which deals with cyber crime. The traditional Statutes would be the Penal Code and Computer Crimes Act 1997 (CCA 1997).

However the Communications & Mulitimedia Act 1998 (CMA 1998) has many provisions which criminalizes certain activities in the internet.

The CCA 1997 basically deals with Computer Hacking, whilst the CMA 1998 deals not only with criminal activities in the internet; but is a far reaching Statute governing the organisations dealing with internet, the operation of the internet etc etc.

We would be blogging on this area, zooming on specific provisions for discussion.

Thank you.

Richard Wee

Wills, Probate & Letter of Administration (Part II)

In our earlier posting we had blogged about Wills & Probate. This is Part II of this series on Wills, Probate & Letters of Administration.

We append below a link to an excellent article by Ms Lee Chooi Peng, a partner at Messrs YH Teh & Quek. She had given a fairly extensive overview about asset management of a deceased, who left without a Will.

We trust you will find the Article, informative and useful.

Happy Reading!

http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/national_young_lawyers/have_your_own_way_with_a_will.html

Anti-Insulting-Religion Laws in Malaysia

We read with interest the latest news that the protestors of Section 23 Shah Alam last month, who had brought along a Cow Head, to protest the building of a Hindu Temple; will be charged for Sedition & Unlawful Assembly.

We would suggest an alternative provision, being Sections 298 & 298A of the Penal Code. Both provisions specifically deals with offences of insulting another person's religion.

Sedition Laws can be seen as another mode of censorship, whilst the Article 10 of the Federal Constitution guarantees the right to assemble, which we believe involved peaceful assembly.

For easy reference, we re-produce S298 & 298A of the Penal Code below.

298. Uttering words, etc. with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person.

Whoever, with deliberate- intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person, utter any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person, or makes ant gesture in the sight of that person, or places any object in the sight of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

298A. Causing etc, disharmony, disunity, or feelings or enmity, hatred or ill-will, or prejudicing, etc., the maintenance of harmony or unity, on grounds of religion.

(1) Whoever by words, either spoken or written or by signs, or by visible representations, or by any act, activity or conduct, or by organising, promoting or arranging, or assisting in organising, promoting or arranging, any activity, or otherwise in any other manner-

(a) causes, or attempts to cause, or is likely to cause disharmony, disunity, or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will; or

(b) prejudices or attempts to prejudice, or is likely to prejudice, the maintenance of harmony or unity,

on grounds of religion, between persons or groups of persons professing the same or different religions, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of not less than two years and not more than five years.

(2) Sections 173A and 294 of the Criminal Procedure Code (F.M.S. Cap. 6) shall not apply in respect of an offence under subsection (1).

(3) Where any person alleges or imputes in any manner specified in subsection (1)-

(a) that any other person, or any class, group or description of persons, professing any particular religion;

(i) has ceased to profess that religion; or

(ii) should not be accepted, or cannot be accepted, as professing that religion; or

(iii) does not believe, follow, profess, or belong to, that religion; or

(b) that anything lawfully done by any religious official appointed, or by any religious authority established, constituted or appointed, by or under any written law, in the exercise of any power, or in the discharge of any duty, or in the performance of any function, of a religious character, by virtue of being so appointed, established or constituted, is not acceptable to such person, or should not be accepted by any other person or persons, or does not accord with or fulfil the requirements of that religion, or is otherwise wrong or improper,

he shall be presumed to have contravened the provisions of subsection (1) by having acted in a manner likely to cause disharmony, disunity or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will, or likely to prejudice the maintenance of harmony or unity, between persons or groups of persons professing the religion referred to in the allegation or imputation.

(4) (a) Where, on any ground of a religious character, any person professing any particular religion uses for burial or cremation of any human corpse a place other than one which is lawfully used for such purpose by persons professing that religion, he shall be presumed to have contravened the provisions of subsection (1) by having acted in a manner likely to cause disharmony, disunity or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will, or likely to prejudice the maintenance of harmony or unity, between persons or groups of persons professing that religion.

(b) Where any person, on any ground of a religious character, counsels, advises, instigates, urges, pleads with, or appeals or propagates to, or in any manner or by any means calls upon, whether directly or indirectly, any other person or persons professing any particular religion-

(i) to use for burial or cremation of any human corpse a place other than one which is lawfully used for such purpose by persons professing that religion; or

(ii) not to use for burial or cremation of any human corpse any place which is lawfully used for such purpose by persons professing that religion; or

(iii) not to use for worship any place which is lawfully used for such purpose by persons professing that religion,

he shall be presumed to have contravened the provisions of subsection (1) by having acted in a manner likely to cause disharmony, disunity or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will, or likely to prejudice the maintenance of harmony or unity, between persons or groups of persons professing that religion or different religions.

(5) Where any person who is not a religious official appointed, or a religious authority established, constituted or appointed, by or under any written law purports to exercise any power, or to discharge any duty, or to perform any function, of a religious character, being a power, duty or function which can be lawfully exercised, discharged or performed only by a religious official appointed, or a religious authority established, constituted or appointed, by or under any written law, he shall be presumed to have contravened the provisions of subsection (1) by having acted in a manner likely to cause disharmony, disunity or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will, or likely to prejudice the maintenance of harmony or unity, between persons or groups of persons professing the same or different religions.

(6) The foregoing provisions of this section shall not apply to-

(a) anything done by any religious authority established, constituted or appointed by or under any written law and conferred by written law with power to give or issue any ruling or decision on any matter pertaining to the religion in respect of which the authority is established, constituted or appointed; or

(b) anything done by any person which is in pursuance of, or which accords with, any ruling or decision given or issued by such religious authority, whether or not such ruling or decision is in writing, and if in writing, whether or not it is published in the Gazette.

(7) It shall not be a defence to any charge under this section to assert that what the offender is charged with doing was done in any honest belief in, or in any honest interpretations of, any precept, tenet or teaching of any religion.

(8) If in any proceedings under this section any question arises with, regard to the interpretation of any aspect of, or any matter in relation to, any religion, the Courts shall accept the interpretation given by any religious referred to in subsection (6), being a religious authority in respect of that religion.