The world is becoming more dependent on computers, which means that there is a current digitalization going on. Due to this, financial crime has moved to into the digital space. This also means that a lot of funds are being moved digitally compared to earlier where cash was more prevalent.
This has also caused a shift in the usage of the legislation, this shift started in 1986, when section 279 a was implemented in the criminal code. This section was focused on data fraud and has a very wide definition, this in turn means it has a wide range of applications.
This thesis focuses on data fraud and compares its usage to the usage of section 278 and 280 in the criminal code. The reason for this is that there appears to be a large overlap between these different sections. This comes about due to the extremely wide definition of data fraud, as well as these sections all having to do with financial crimes.
The goal of this thesis is to compare the usage of the mentioned sections, to each other and see if and how they overlap. The focus being whether data fraud is being utilized or whether it has a wide enough range that the other sections are becoming irrelevant. As part of this, analyses of court transcripts are conducted to see how the courts are currently using the different sections, what considerations they bring into the discussions, as well as whether there are cases which could have been using a different section of the criminal code.
There are multiple court transcripts from each section, where the defendant uses a digital platform to engage in the criminal acts. Due to the definition in section 279 a, these cases might be able to be under this section instead of another section. And this overlap can cause confusion as the which section should be used by the courts. But the overlap also comes about because the different sections can be used on different parts of the same crime, which has the effect that the prosecutor might be able to choose whichever of the sections they please as it has the same punishment.
The conclusion of this thesis is that sections 278 and 280, each still have their use in our current court system, though this use can be a lot smaller than before 1986, where section 279 a was implemented. This happens because section 279 a, due to the wide range, ends up seeming like a collection provision on any case using digital platforms to get a financial gain. However, due to the protection interests that section 278 and 280 have, they are still being used to a large degree on cases where there are multiple options.