Online extortion, defamation and threats under Iraqi law

In briefIraq has no dedicated cybercrime statute in force, so online threats, extortion, defamation, insult, publishing private photos, fraud and impersonation are judged under Penal Code No. 111 of 1969. Defamation, insult, threats and disclosure of secrets need a complaint within three months of the victim learning of them, and the court weighs electronic evidence.

Most people who reach this page are holding a phone with something on it they did not ask for: a demand for money in exchange for silence, a post that ruins a reputation overnight, an account that suddenly speaks in their name, or a payment that vanished into a stranger's wallet. Iraqi courts deal with such facts every day, even though no dedicated cybercrime statute has been passed. The office of Ali Barakat in al-Yarmouk, Baghdad, follows how such facts are read under Iraqi laws in force, starting with Penal Code No. 111 of 1969 and Criminal Procedure Code No. 23 of 1971.

Which law applies

Iraq has no dedicated cybercrime statute in force. Bills circulating under that name have not been published in the Official Gazette and are not treated as law. Online conduct is therefore measured against the general provisions of the Penal Code: threats in articles 430 to 432, defamation and insult in articles 433 to 435, disclosure of secrets in article 437, publishing private life in article 438, fraud in article 456, obtaining money by threat in article 452, impersonating a public office in article 260, and forgery from article 286 onward. The electronic medium does not change the legal description of an act, but it may make it public or reveal a particular intent.

Publicity online

Many of these offences turn on publicity. Article 19 of the Penal Code lists the means of publicity, including words broadcast by mechanical means so that people with no part in using them can hear, the press and other means of advertising and publication, and writing, pictures and films that are distributed or displayed. An open post on social media is measured against this definition, unlike a private message between two people, which article 435 handles with a lighter range.

Threats and extortion

The commonest file in this area is a message offering the victim a choice between paying and being exposed. The law handles it through the general threat provisions, with a heavier range where the threat comes with a demand and a further provision where the aim is to extract money. The victim does not need to know who the blackmailer is in order to complain. The grades, penalties and what to keep before complaining are in online threats and extortion.

Defamation, insult and smearing

The difference between articles 433 and 434 is a specific fact. Defamation is publicly attributing to someone a particular act that, if true, would expose him to punishment or public contempt, such as writing that he stole from his department. Insult is a degrading or wounding description without a specific fact. In both, publication through the media is an aggravating circumstance. See Online defamation and insult.

Private photos and chats

Article 438 punishes publishing, by any means of publicity, news, pictures or comments about the private or family life of individuals, even if true, where publication would harm them; and revealing a letter or phone call to someone other than its addressee where that causes harm. See Publishing private photos and chats.

Electronic fraud

The seller who disappears after the transfer, the message announcing a prize, the caller who wants a verification code "to update the account": all of these fall under the ordinary fraud provision of the Penal Code, because what matters is the deception that led to the money being handed over, not the medium. How deception is proved and what happens to the money is in electronic fraud.

Hacked accounts and impersonation

Getting into someone else's account is rarely the end of the story; the law looks at what followed: publishing chats, blackmailing the owner, or deceiving his contacts in his name. Someone who opens an account posing as an official or a public body comes close to the impersonation provisions. The complaint route is in hacked account or phone complaint, and fake accounts in impersonation and fake accounts.

Children

Article 399 punishes inciting a person under eighteen to immorality or facilitating it; article 403 punishes making, distributing or displaying indecent pictures and films, with aggravation where the aim is to corrupt morals. Article 236 bars publishing names or pictures of juvenile accused and victims of sexual offences. See Online offences against children.

The complaint and its deadline

For most offences in this field the public prosecution does not act on its own; it waits for the person harmed to complain, unless the target is an official attacked because of his work. The complaint has a deadline that runs from the day the victim learned of the act, and it lapses if left unpursued for a long time. Where to file, and how a police station differs from an investigating judge, is in police station or investigating judge.

When there is no offence

Not every harsh word is defamation. What a party says in court pleadings, within what the defence requires, is not punished; someone who answers an unjust attack on the spot in anger is spared punishment; and criticism of an official's public work is treated differently from smearing a private person. The limits of these situations are in online defamation and insult.

Professional secrets

Anyone who sees the contents of a phone or account because of his job, such as a repair technician or a telecom employee, is bound to keep it confidential, and publishing what he saw is a separate offence. There is no offence where the person concerned consented, or where the disclosure was made to report a crime.

Reconciliation and waiver

Many of these cases can end by agreement, but not always by the parties' word alone: reconciliation in some offences depends on the judge's approval, an accepted reconciliation has the effect of an acquittal, and one complainant's waiver does not bind the others. Any settlement should include an express commitment to delete the material.

Civil compensation

A penalty does not repair the damage done to a victim's reputation or work. The law therefore allows a claim for compensation that includes non-material harm, either in a separate action or joined to the criminal case itself.

Electronic evidence

Iraqi courts decide on their own conviction from the whole of the evidence, and the evidence and e-transactions laws let electronic records carry weight when they are preserved properly and can be tied to their author and date. In practice, many blackmailers and defamers delete posts and accounts within days of a complaint, so the work starts by saving what can be saved at once and keeping the phone itself untouched until the investigating judge decides whether an expert should examine it. Method and pitfalls are in electronic evidence before the investigating court.

Publishing during an investigation

People who are smeared tend to answer publicly, and that carries a risk: publishing what is happening in a live investigation, or anything that might sway witnesses or judges, can turn the complainant into a defendant. How to speak without losing ground is in reporter liability and publication during an investigation.

Three questions that set the route

Before any step, it helps to answer three questions. First, what exactly happened: a threat, a publication, money taken, or access to an account? The label decides the provision, the penalty and whether a complaint is required. Second, who is the victim? A child, or an official targeted because of his work, changes how the case is set in motion. Third, when did you find out? The complaint deadline runs from that day, and many people lose it while waiting for the other side to stop by itself. A written answer to these questions, with the saved messages, makes the first visit to the investigating judge productive.

When the person responsible is someone you know

Many cases here are not committed by strangers but by a former fiancé, a colleague or a relative who knows the details of the victim's life. That adds social pressure to end things quietly or through a tribal sitting. Kinship or acquaintance does not prevent a complaint or change the description of the act, but it affects how the file is run from the start: what any agreement should require, how to make sure the other side deletes what he holds, and whether a waiver is enough or a reconciliation before the judge should be recorded officially.

Who contacts the office

People who received threats or extortion, people whose reputation was attacked online, people whose photos or chats were taken, people who lost money to online fraud, and people facing a complaint over something they posted. Contact: +964 770 848 7526 or alibaltaae@gmail.com.

Legal basis and sources

Frequently asked questions

Does Iraq have a cybercrime law in force?

No dedicated statute has been published in the Official Gazette; the general Penal Code provisions apply to online conduct.

What is the deadline to complain about a threat or defamation?

Three months from the victim learning of the offence, under article 6 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Is a Facebook post public?

An open post is measured against the publicity definition in article 19 of the Penal Code; a private message falls under article 435.

Is a screenshot evidence?

It is circumstantial evidence the court weighs; keeping the device, link and date, and asking for technical expertise if it is denied, strengthens it.

Topics in this area

Always check the text in force and its amendments in the official source.

To ask about your matter

Call +964 770 848 7526 WhatsApp Email

Online and Social Media Offences