Assalamualaikum dan Selamat datang ke blog "Sharing is Caring" ruang ini direkabentuk untuk berkomunikasi serta mencambah idea secara online

Pages

Case Study 2


Case Study 2: The Scenario - Conviction in India

A complaint was filed in by Sony India Private Ltd, which runs a website called
sony-sambandh.com, targeting Non Resident Indians. The website enables NRIs to
send Sony products to their friends and relatives in India after they pay for it online.

The company undertakes to deliver the products to the concerned recipients. In
May 2002,someone logged onto the website under the identity of Barbara Campa
and ordered a Sony Colour Television set and a cordless head phone.A lady gave
her credit card number for payment and requested that the products be delivered
to Arif Azim in Noida. The payment was duly cleared by the credit card agency
and the transaction processed. After following the relevant procedures of due
diligence and checking, the company delivered the items to Arif Azim.

At the time of delivery, the company took digital photographs showing the
delivery being accepted by Arif Azim.

The transaction closed at that, but after one and a half months the credit card
agency informed the company that this was an unauthorized transaction as the
real owner had denied having made the purchase.

The company lodged a complaint for online cheating at the Central Bureau of
Investigation which registered a case under Section 418, 419 and 420 of the
Indian Penal Code.

The matter was investigated into and Arif Azim was arrested. Investigations
revealed that Arif Azim, while working at a call centre in Noida gained access
to the credit card number of an American national which he misused on the
company’s site.

The CBI recovered the colour television and the cordless head phone.

The accused admitted his guilt and the court of Shri Gulshan Kumar Metropolitan
Magistrate, New Delhi, convicted Arif Azim under Section 418, 419 and 420 of
the Indian Penal Code — this being the first time that a cyber crime has been
convicted.

The court, however, felt that as the accused was a young boy of 24 years and a
first-time convict, a lenient view needed to be taken. The court therefore
released the accused on probation for one year.