technology lawyer

Introduction of cryptocurrency and hacking offences to Parliament

by

reviewed by

Malcolm Burrows

Reading Time:

4–7 minutes

The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Ransomware Action Plan) Bill 2022 (Bill) seeks to amend the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Criminal Code), the Crimes Act 1914 and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to bring historical legislation into the modern state of play as it relates to threats of ransomware.  The new powers under this Bill complement existing search and seizure powers, which we have previously considered here.

Geographical considerations

Importantly, at the outset, the Bill does away with geographical constraints upon offending.  Whilst it may have been the case that to be charged with a cyber type of offence the offending would need to have occurred within Australia, the Bill introduces an ‘impact-focused’ method of determining jurisdiction.  That is, instead of focusing on the location at which the offending occurs, the Bill is concerned of the location upon which the offending impacts.

Where the conduct constituting the alleged offence occurs wholly outside Australia and it constitutes an offence relating to unauthorised:

  • access to data;
  • modification of data;
  • impairment of electronic communication of data to or from a computer; or
  • impairment of the reliability, security or operation of any data; and

the data is under the control of an Australian person or corporation and is reasonably capable of being accessed within Australia, an offender will not escape liability for the offence based on the geographical externality to Australia.[1]

Cryptocurrency seizures

Schedule 3 of the Bill inserts various sections into the Crimes Act 1914.  Arguably, most interestingly amongst them is section 1, which inserts section 3C(1) to define a digital asset and its seizure as follows:

digital asset means:

  • a digital representation of value or rights (including rights to property), the ownership of which is evidenced cryptographically and that is held and transferred electronically by:
  • a type of distributed ledger technology; or
  • another distributed cryptographically verifiable data structure; or
  • a right or thing prescribed by the regulations;

but does not include any right or thing that, under the regulations, is taken to be a digital asset for the purposes of this Part.

seize, for a digital asset, has a meaning affected by subsection 3FA(3).

 The legislative definition does not outright state ‘cryptocurrencies’, but it is perfectly clear for all who read that it is indeed such currency which is being referred to.  Indeed, a cryptocurrency is a digital representation of value with ownership cryptographically evidenced and is tradeable on distributed ledge technology.

Therefore, it is prudent to consider the circumstances in which this Bill would allow the government to seize cryptocurrencies.

If a warrant is in force in relation to either a premises or a person, an executing officer may seize a digital asset if:

  • in the course of exercising the warrant, the officer finds one or more things that suggest the existence of the digital asset; and
  • the officer suspects the digital asset to be:
    • evidential material in relation to an offence to which the warrant relates; or
    • evidential material in relation to another offence that is an indictable offence; or
    • evidential material or tainted property; and
  • the officer reasonably suspects that seizing the digital asset is necessary to prevent its concealment, loss or destruction, or its use in committing an offence.[2]

It is clear that there needs to be a sufficient connection between the digital asset and an offence before an officer is authorised to seize the digital asset.  Where an officer is authorised to do so by transferring the digital asset from an existing digital wallet to a digital wallet controlled by the Australian Federal Police.[3]  Notably, the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill indicates that an officer is not confined merely to the above method of seizing digital assets.[4]  It appears Parliament intends to provide very broad powers to officers, in certain circumstances, to seize digital assets.

Hacking offences

The Bill establishes an offence of data extortion with penalty of imprisonment of ten (10) years.  Where a person without authorisation accesses, modifies or impairs data held in a computer and then, via a carriage service, makes a threat to the owner of the data compelling them to do or omit to do an act.[5]

The Bill also established an offence of dealing with data.  Where a person obtains, accesses, modifies or releases data by use of a carriage service and was not authorised to access or modify said data, they will have committed an offence and be liable for five (5) years imprisonment.[6]

The most severe penalty for offending introduced by the Bill is in relation to aggravated computer offences, whereby an offender may be liable to twenty-five (25) years imprisonment.  Where an offender commits an underlying offence, such as unauthorised access or modification, but that act is targeted directly or indirectly towards ‘critical infrastructure’, it will be considered aggravating offending.[7]  Critical infrastructure is expansively defined under section 9 of the Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018.

Takeaways

The Bill provides a novel power for law enforcement to seize digital assets such as cryptocurrencies and provides further protection against cyber crimes via the introduction of more severe penalties and the removal of geographical constraints, which may otherwise have created difficulty in prosecuting international offenders.

Links and further references

Legislation

Crimes Act 1914

Crimes Legislation Amendment (Ransomware Action Plan) Bill 2022

Criminal Code Act 1995

Explanatory Memorandum to Crimes Legislation Amendment (Ransomware Action Plan) Bill 2022

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018

Further information about cryptocurrency seizure and hacking offences

If you need advice on cryptocurrency seizure and hacking offences, contact us for a confidential and obligation-free discussion:

[1] Bill section 1 introducing section 476/3 to the Code.

[2] Bill Schedule 3 section 7 inserting section 3FA(1) and (2) into the Crimes Act 1914; Bill Schedule 3 s 11 inserting section 288A(1) in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

[3] Bill Schedule 3 section 7 inserting section 3FA(3) into the Crimes Act 1914; Bill Schedule 3 s 11 inserting section 288A(2) in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

[4] Explanatory memorandum at [144].

[5] Bill Schedule 1 section 2 inserting section 477.4 into the Criminal Code.

[6] Bill Schedule 1 section 2 inserting section 478.5 into the Criminal Code.

[7] Bill Schedule 1 section 12 inserting sections 479.1 and 479.2 into the Criminal Code.


Related insights about cryptocurrency seizure and hacking offences

  • Are email trackers admissible as evidence?

    Are email trackers admissible as evidence?

    The Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) is silent, but the Court considers email trackers and read receipts as evidence in civil and intellectual property litigation. As seen in Jaffari v Grabowski [2013] NSWCA 114, sender’s receipt of confirmation of email relay is a matter for the recipient.

    Read more …

  • Is AI recognized as an inventor under the Patents Act 1990?

    Is AI recognized as an inventor under the Patents Act 1990?

    The ruling of Thaler v Commissioner of Patents [2021] FCA 879 has opened the door for artificial intelligence-created inventions to be eligible for patent protection. Learn more about the implications of this groundbreaking decision.

    Read more …

  • The Australian Cyber Law Map – overview

    The Australian Cyber Law Map – overview

    The Australian Cyber Law Map provides clarity on ever-changing legal landscape, covering commercial enterprises, cyber offences, infrastructure, international law, national security and personal rights. A source for understanding laws and providing safety/security in the digital age.

    Read more …

  • Explaining Australia’s Media Bargaining Code

    Explaining Australia’s Media Bargaining Code

    The News Media Bargaining Code (NMBC) is quickly moving through Parliament and looks likely to become law. It requires digital platforms, such as Facebook and Google, to negotiate remuneration with News Companies for providing their media services. Non-compliance could result in hefty civil penalties.

    Read more …

  • Kogan fined $310k for Spam Act breaches

    Kogan fined $310k for Spam Act breaches

    Kogan Australia Pty Ltd has been issued a hefty penalty and an enforceable undertaking for not complying with the Spam Act 2003 (Cth). Find out what this means for your business and what the consequences are for failing to comply.

    Read more …

  • Warning – Facebook trolls ordered to pay $150k damages

    Warning – Facebook trolls ordered to pay $150k damages

    An online defamation case has resulted in two trolls being ordered to pay a hefty sum in damages. Learn more about the case and the potential consequences of making false claims online.

    Read more …

  • My client poached my software developers – what can I do?

    My client poached my software developers – what can I do?

    This article examines how professional service businesses can protect their investment in employees from clients poaching them. It looks at potential clauses such as client agreements, non-solicitation of employees, restraints of trade, confidential information, copyright and more.

    Read more …

  • Emojis used online can be defamatory – watch out!

    Emojis used online can be defamatory – watch out!

    This Australian Court case is the first to consider whether emojis can be defamatory. Find out what the Court concluded about this novel legal question.

    Read more …

  • Patent granted for software tracking user actions

    Patent granted for software tracking user actions

    A decision by Australian Patent Office provides insight into patentable subject matter for computer-implemented inventions. Case of Facebook, Inc. [2020] APO 19 is a successful example of technical improvement in computer-implemented method, resulting in patentability even with generic computer implementation.

    Read more …

Send this to a friend