Transnational Nature of Cyber Crimes

Cyber crimes are inherently transnational, often involving actors, servers, victims, and financial intermediaries located in multiple countries. This makes national laws alone insufficient to combat such threats.

Example: A phishing attack targeting Indian citizens could originate from Russia, use a US-based email server, and direct money to an account in Dubai.

Key reasons international cooperation is required:

• Global accessibility of the internet: Crimes can be committed from anywhere at any time.
• Cloud computing and data storage: Data is often stored across borders in multiple jurisdictions.
• Use of anonymous and encrypted tools: VPNs, TOR, cryptocurrency wallets increase the complexity.
• Need for timely access: Information stored on foreign servers is subject to the laws and procedures of those countries.

Conclusion: Without global collaboration, prosecuting cyber crimes is slow, ineffective, or impossible due to legal and procedural barriers.

Challenges in Cross-border Investigations

Law enforcement agencies face multiple legal, technical, and diplomatic obstacles when conducting cybercrime investigations that involve foreign jurisdictions.

Key challenges include:

• Lack of harmonized cyber laws: What is considered a crime in one country may not be in another (e.g., hate speech, defamation, file sharing).
• Jurisdictional conflicts: Conflicting legal authority of two or more countries over the same incident.
• Delayed Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs): Requests for evidence from foreign countries often take months or even years.
• Absence of bilateral treaties: India does not have cybercrime treaties with many nations, limiting cooperation.
• Language and cultural barriers: Investigating in unfamiliar territories with different languages and systems creates delays.

Suggested reforms and tools:

• Participation in global conventions like the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime
• Development of a regional framework for cyber cooperation (e.g., through SAARC, ASEAN)
• Real-time data-sharing arrangements between CERTs (Computer Emergency Response Teams)
• Establishing joint cyber task forces for critical and high-impact cases

Conclusion: Addressing cybercrime demands a collaborative global approach built on speed, trust, shared standards, and legal harmonisation.

Bilateral Treaties and Agreements

Bilateral treaties are formal agreements between two countries to cooperate in the investigation, prosecution, and exchange of cybercrime-related information and suspects. These agreements help overcome jurisdictional challenges and differences in legal systems.

Key features:

• Exchange of information: Real-time or timely sharing of data about cyber threats, suspects, and technologies.
• Assistance in investigation: Access to digital evidence stored in another country.
• Extradition arrangements: Enabling legal transfer of cybercriminals for trial.

Examples:

• India has signed cyber security MoUs with countries like the USA, UK, France, and Japan for information exchange and capacity building.
• India–US Homeland Security Dialogue includes cyber security as a critical area of cooperation.

Limitation: Bilateral treaties require long negotiation periods and are not uniform across all nations, limiting rapid response.

Multilateral Conventions

Budapest Convention on Cybercrime

The Budapest Convention, adopted by the Council of Europe in 2001, is the first international treaty aimed at addressing Internet and computer crime by harmonizing national laws and promoting cooperation.

Main objectives:

• Standardization of cybercrime laws across countries
• Facilitating fast and reliable cooperation between law enforcement agencies
• Enabling mutual assistance in the preservation and sharing of electronic evidence

Status in India: India has not signed the Convention, citing concerns over sovereignty and lack of participation in its drafting process.

UN Efforts on Cybercrime and Cybersecurity

The United Nations plays a pivotal role in formulating global norms and frameworks for cybercrime and cyber security. Some of its initiatives include:

• UN General Assembly Resolutions on the criminal misuse of information technologies
• Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) reports on responsible behavior in cyberspace
• Proposals for a Global Cybercrime Treaty under negotiation at the UN Ad Hoc Committee since 2021

These efforts aim to create a universally accepted legal framework to govern cross-border cybercrime enforcement.

Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs)

MLATs are formal agreements between countries that facilitate the collection and exchange of information and evidence in criminal investigations and prosecutions, including cybercrime cases.

Functions:

• Preservation and sharing of digital evidence
• Examination of witnesses located abroad
• Transfer of suspects and accused persons

Challenges:

• Requests are processed through formal diplomatic channels, leading to delays
• Differences in domestic legal procedures may block requests
• Most MLATs lack provisions for real-time electronic data sharing

Indian Context: India has MLATs with over 40 countries. The Ministry of Home Affairs is the central authority to process MLAT requests.

Information Sharing between Law Enforcement Agencies

Effective cybercrime enforcement requires timely exchange of intelligence and digital forensics between law enforcement bodies across countries.

Mechanisms used:

• Interpol's I-24/7 Network: Allows police forces in different countries to share alerts and evidence
• GCCS (Global Conference on Cyber Space): International cooperation forums for sharing best practices
• Public-private partnerships: Tech firms and cybersecurity companies often share real-time threat intelligence with law enforcement bodies

India’s Participation:

• Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is the nodal agency for Interpol coordination
• CERT-In collaborates with international agencies for threat alerts and cyber incident handling

Conclusion: International cooperation is a cornerstone for combating cybercrime. Strong bilateral, multilateral, and institutional mechanisms must complement national efforts to ensure digital safety globally.