Fraud Awareness and Prevention in Cyber Crime: A Case Study
Added on 2023-06-15
5 Pages1073 Words373 Views
Running Head; FRAUD AWARENESS PREVENTION
1
FRAUD AWARENESS PREVENTION
Name:
Institution:
Course Code:
1
FRAUD AWARENESS PREVENTION
Name:
Institution:
Course Code:
FRAUD AWARENESS PREVENTION 2
Facts of the case
Fraud description
The fraud under consideration, in this case, is cyber-crime that was committed between 8.00 AM
to 10.00 PM on 21st January 2018 at London city in Canada. This fraud act was allegedly
committed by John Black Hat. It was reported by one of the companies (AGH Company) in the
city that the alleged fraudster hacked into company’s bank account and transferred a huge
amount of money.
From the actions of John Black Hat, the police noted three main characteristics of this fraudster.
The first character associated with John was deprivation. When police confiscated his laptops
from his warehouse, he denied any ownership until the system recognized his as the most wanted
cyber-attacker (Bohm, 2013). Second, he is deceptive and lastly risk taker. Despite counter
cyber-cyber-crime set by Canadian legal system, John risked being arrested.
This fraud is an offense punishable by law. In this case, the fraud was perpetuated to be a
deliberate act that John Black Hat committed knowing the legal status of his act. Under Canadian
Criminal Code section 342, the fraud was categorized under Canadian cyber-crime laws. This
law was applied to determine whether John was liable or not. The company suffered damages for
financial loss. Thus, the case was perpetuated on the basis of section 342.
According to Canadian criminal code, hacking is a form of cyber-crime that result in a criminal
offense punishable by law. This fraud falls under section 342 of the criminal code that deals with
theft, forgery of credit cards and authorized use of a computer (Allen, 2011). Thus, this fraud
was prosecuted as a criminal offense. The body that propelled this case was given mandate by
Canadian computer crime laws. In this case, the plaintiffs would be AGH Company while the
defendant will be John Black Hat. During court proceedings, this case was presented as AGH
Company VS John Black Hat.
Identification of fraudster(s)
The name of the alleged fraudster was John Black Hat. The company later realized that the
hacker would not have managed to access the company’s bank account with inside information.
Facts of the case
Fraud description
The fraud under consideration, in this case, is cyber-crime that was committed between 8.00 AM
to 10.00 PM on 21st January 2018 at London city in Canada. This fraud act was allegedly
committed by John Black Hat. It was reported by one of the companies (AGH Company) in the
city that the alleged fraudster hacked into company’s bank account and transferred a huge
amount of money.
From the actions of John Black Hat, the police noted three main characteristics of this fraudster.
The first character associated with John was deprivation. When police confiscated his laptops
from his warehouse, he denied any ownership until the system recognized his as the most wanted
cyber-attacker (Bohm, 2013). Second, he is deceptive and lastly risk taker. Despite counter
cyber-cyber-crime set by Canadian legal system, John risked being arrested.
This fraud is an offense punishable by law. In this case, the fraud was perpetuated to be a
deliberate act that John Black Hat committed knowing the legal status of his act. Under Canadian
Criminal Code section 342, the fraud was categorized under Canadian cyber-crime laws. This
law was applied to determine whether John was liable or not. The company suffered damages for
financial loss. Thus, the case was perpetuated on the basis of section 342.
According to Canadian criminal code, hacking is a form of cyber-crime that result in a criminal
offense punishable by law. This fraud falls under section 342 of the criminal code that deals with
theft, forgery of credit cards and authorized use of a computer (Allen, 2011). Thus, this fraud
was prosecuted as a criminal offense. The body that propelled this case was given mandate by
Canadian computer crime laws. In this case, the plaintiffs would be AGH Company while the
defendant will be John Black Hat. During court proceedings, this case was presented as AGH
Company VS John Black Hat.
Identification of fraudster(s)
The name of the alleged fraudster was John Black Hat. The company later realized that the
hacker would not have managed to access the company’s bank account with inside information.
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.