Internet Fraud and Article 180 – What the Law Treats as Fraud
Article 180 of the Criminal Code of Georgia defines fraud as the unlawful appropriation of another person's property, or the acquisition of a property right, by deception. Fraud committed on the internet falls squarely within this definition: the deception is carried out through a fake page, digital communication, a false offer or another online channel, but in legal terms the offence is the same – taking another's property or a property right by deception under the guise of a lawful transaction. Cases of this kind are therefore qualified under this article, and the sanctions set out below apply to them.
Two elements are decisive under the article – deception and the aim of appropriation. The prosecution must prove that the person supplied the victim with information that created a false impression, and that, relying on that false impression, the person appropriated another's property or acquired a property right. The online environment does not change this scheme – it is merely the channel of the deception, which matters for the defense, because each element must be verified separately against the case materials.
What the Prosecution Asserts and Where the Defense Begins
In an internet fraud case the prosecution relies on the digital trail – correspondence, payments, pages and accounts. The first task of the defense is to determine whether deception actually existed: in many cases it is far from clear that information was false, rather than that an agreement was simply not performed, or that a commercial dispute is at issue which does not require criminal protection. The boundary between deception and an unperformed civil obligation is defined by other norms of the Code and by court practice, and it is on this boundary that a lawyer builds the position.
The second direction is proof of the aim of appropriation. The prosecution must adduce evidence that the person had a settled intent to take another's property without legal ground. If that aim is not confirmed by the case materials, the grave qualification becomes unjustified. A separate question is the establishment of the damage and its amount – where the prosecution invokes significant damage or a large amount, that circumstance must be substantiated with evidence.
Sanctions – Every Part of Article 180 Separately
Article 180 provides for different penalties, and it is important that the sanction of each part be presented separately, without blending them together:
- part 1 – fraud, that is, the unlawful appropriation of another's property or the acquisition of a property right by deception – is punished by a fine, or community service for a term of one hundred and seventy to two hundred hours, or corrective labor for a term of up to two years, or house arrest for a term of one to two years, or imprisonment for a term of two to four years;
- part 2 – the same act committed by a group with prior conspiracy, or having caused significant damage – a fine, or imprisonment for a term of four to seven years;
- part 3 – the same act committed by using an official position, in a large amount, or more than once – a fine, or imprisonment for a term of six to nine years;
- part 4 – the same act committed by an organized group, or by a person twice or more previously convicted of unlawful appropriation of another's property or of extortion – imprisonment for a term of seven to ten years.
As is clear, part 1 starts from a fine, while part 4 provides for imprisonment only. Which part governs the case therefore translates directly into the expected outcome. The rules on individualization of punishment and on mitigating circumstances are defined by other norms of the Code.
Aggravating Forms – Which Circumstances Make the Charge More Severe
Part 2 treats as aggravated the commission of the act by a group with prior conspiracy, and the causing of significant damage. Part 3 aggravates liability where the act was committed by using an official position, in a large amount, or more than once. Part 4 concerns commission by an organized group and the conduct of a person who has twice or more been convicted of unlawful appropriation of another's property or of extortion.
In internet fraud cases the questions of group commission and repetition are often contested – the involvement of several persons in an online scheme does not automatically mean what the law calls a group. The content of these concepts is defined by other norms of the Code, which is precisely why their careful verification is the lawyer's task, in order to challenge an excessively grave qualification.
Fraud or a Civil Dispute – Why This Is Decisive
In the era of online commerce it is common for a purchase from a website or an order for services to remain unperformed. Such a conflict is not always a crime: if the person had no intent to deceive and simply failed to perform an obligation, the matter may remain a civil dispute. Establishing the moment of deception and the intent is a question of concrete evidence, and it is often here that the fate of the case is decided.
A lawyer will assess how the communication is documented, what the position of the parties was at the time of the transaction, and whether signs of a criminal offence exist at all. Without that assessment any further step – including negotiations with the prosecution – comes too early.
How a Defense Lawyer Assists in Internet Fraud Cases
If a case under Article 180 has been opened against you in connection with an online transaction, engaging a lawyer as early as possible is essential. A lawyer will examine the correctness of the qualification, verify the proof of deception and of the aim of appropriation, assess the evidence concerning the amount of damage, and protect your rights at every stage of the proceedings.
The lawyers of Legal.ge work on criminal cases, including offences committed in a digital environment, and will help you form an accurate assessment of your situation and choose a defense strategy.