EFECTELE DECIZIEI NR. 15/2013, A ÎNALTEI CURŢI DE CASAŢIE ŞI JUSTIŢIE, ÎN IPOTEZA FALSIFICĂRII ŞI UTILIZĂRII FRAUDULOASE A UNUI PORTOFEL ELECTRONIC
THE EFFECTS OF DECISION NO 15/2013 OF THE HIGH COURT OF CASSATION AND JUSTICE IN THE EVENT OF FORGERY AND FRAUDULENT USE OF AN ELECTRONIC WALLET

Summary/Abstract: In recent years, interest in electronic payments (cashless, with presence or at distance) has increased, contributing to the emergence of new financial technologies and, implicitly, to the sophistication of cybercriminals. In this context, electronic payment instruments have become vulnerable, becoming the object of material or digital falsification; such electronic instruments are bank debit or credit cards, as well as wallets intended for the storage and trading of electronic currency and cryptocurrency. Electronic currency or cryptocurrency wallets come in several forms: prepaid bank or non-bank cards, physical or virtual; digital trading platforms; specialized applications and programs installed on the mobile phone or computer; autonomous hardware devices; QR code paper tools. Decision no. 15/2013 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice regarding the appeal in the interest of the law formulated for the standardization of judicial practice in the case of unauthorized access to a computer system, in the case of cash withdrawal by using a counterfeit card at the ATM, it also applies in the case of the use an electronic wallet in the form of a bank debit card, the act being classified, according to the criminal law in force, to fraudulently carrying out financial operations by using a non-cash payment instrument, including the identification data that allow its use (art. 250 para. 1 C. pen.), in conjunction with illegal access to a computer system in order to obtain computer data, when access is restricted or prohibited (art. 360 para. 1, 2 and 3 of the Criminal Code) and with the circulation of a counterfeit cashless payment instrument (art. 313 para. 1 of the Criminal Code). In our opinion, this decision is questionable in terms of legal framework, but it is binding and will be applied in all similar cases.

• Details
• Contents