United Nations Proposed Convention Against Cybercrime

SCARS Institute Position Paper

An overview and analysis of the Proposed Convention Against Cybercrime

Cybercrime Advocacy – A Series
A SCARS Institute™ Whitepaper

Summary of the Draft United Nations Convention Against Cybercrime

The draft United Nations Convention against Cybercrime, outlined in document A/AC.291/L.15, aims to enhance international cooperation to combat crimes committed via information and communication technology (ICT) systems. Recognizing the rapid evolution and increasing complexity of cybercrimes, the Convention seeks to establish a comprehensive framework for preventing, investigating, and prosecuting cybercrimes while ensuring the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The document emphasizes the importance of global collaboration, technical assistance, capacity-building, and the harmonization of national laws to address the multifaceted nature of cybercrime. Key provisions include the criminalization of various cyber-related offenses, mechanisms for international cooperation, protection of personal data, and support for victims. Additionally, the Convention underscores the need for gender-sensitive approaches and public awareness campaigns to enhance prevention efforts. The establishment of a Conference of the States Parties is proposed to monitor the implementation and effectiveness of the Convention, promote cooperation, and facilitate information exchange among member states. This initiative reflects a concerted effort to create a unified and robust response to the growing threat of cybercrime on an international scale.

Note: The following is based upon the draft convention dated: 6 August 2024 

Section A: SCARS Institute Summarized Analysis of the Draft United Nations Convention Against Cybercrime

1. SCARS Institute Analysis Introduction

The Draft United Nations Convention against Cybercrime is a significant step towards addressing the escalating threat of cybercrimes globally. This document, referenced as A/AC.291/L.15, outlines a comprehensive legal framework aimed at enhancing international cooperation, harmonizing national laws, and ensuring effective measures to combat cybercrimes while safeguarding human rights and fundamental freedoms.

2. Key Objectives

The primary objectives of the Convention are:

Prevention of Cybercrime: Establishing preventive measures to deter cybercriminal activities.

Criminalization: Defining and criminalizing various forms of cybercrime.

International Cooperation: Facilitating international collaboration for the investigation and prosecution of cybercrimes.

Capacity-Building: Enhancing the capabilities of member states to combat cybercrime through technical assistance and training.

Victim Support and Protection: Ensuring mechanisms to support victims of cybercrime and protect their data.

3. Criminalization of Cybercrime

The Convention outlines specific acts to be criminalized under national laws of member states:

Illegal Access: Unauthorized access to ICT systems.

Data Interference: Unauthorized modification, deletion, or impairment of data.

System Interference: Unauthorized hindrance of the functioning of an ICT system.

Misuse of Devices: Production, distribution, or possession of devices or software intended for committing cybercrimes.

Computer-Related Forgery and Fraud: Manipulation of data or systems to commit fraud or forgery.

4. International Cooperation

The Convention emphasizes the need for robust international cooperation, including:

Extradition: Establishing protocols for extradition of cybercriminals between member states.

Mutual Legal Assistance: Facilitating cross-border legal assistance in investigations and prosecutions.

Information Sharing: Promoting the exchange of information and best practices among member states.

Joint Investigations: Encouraging collaborative investigations and operations against cybercriminal networks.

5. Data Protection and Privacy

A crucial aspect of the Convention is the protection of personal data. It mandates:

Data Protection Laws: Member states must implement laws to protect personal data from unauthorized access and use.

Rights of Data Subjects: Ensuring individuals’ rights to access, correct, and delete their personal data.

Data Breach Notification: Obligating entities to notify affected individuals and authorities in the event of data breaches.

6. Capacity-Building and Technical Assistance

Recognizing the varying levels of capability among member states, the Convention provides for:

Training Programs: Developing training programs for law enforcement, judiciary, and other stakeholders.

Technical Assistance: Offering technical support to enhance cybersecurity infrastructure and capabilities.

Public Awareness: Conducting public awareness campaigns to educate citizens about cybercrime and prevention strategies.

7. Gender-Sensitive Approaches

The Convention acknowledges the gendered dimensions of cybercrime, particularly cyber violence against women and children. It calls for:

Gender-Sensitive Policies: Developing policies that address the specific needs and vulnerabilities of women and children.

Support Services: Providing specialized support services for victims of gender-based cyber violence.

8. Implementation and Monitoring

To ensure effective implementation, the Convention proposes the establishment of a Conference of the States Parties, tasked with:

Monitoring Implementation: Overseeing the implementation of the Convention by member states.

Promoting Cooperation: Facilitating cooperation and information exchange among states.

Review Mechanisms: Reviewing and updating the Convention as necessary to address emerging threats and challenges.

9. Strengths of the Convention

Comprehensive Scope: The Convention covers a wide range of cybercrimes, ensuring that emerging threats are addressed.

Emphasis on Cooperation: By promoting international cooperation, the Convention enhances the global response to cybercrime.

Focus on Capacity-Building: Supporting member states in developing their capabilities ensures a more uniform global standard in combating cybercrime.

Victim Protection: The Convention’s provisions for data protection and victim support are crucial for safeguarding individuals’ rights.

10. Potential Challenges

Implementation Variability: Differences in legal systems and capacities among member states may affect uniform implementation.

Privacy Concerns: Balancing effective law enforcement with the protection of privacy rights could be challenging.

Resource Allocation: Ensuring adequate resources for capacity-building and technical assistance programs may be difficult.

11. Conclusion

The Draft United Nations Convention against Cybercrime represents a critical advancement in the global fight against cybercrime. By establishing a comprehensive legal framework, promoting international cooperation, and emphasizing capacity-building, the Convention aims to create a unified and robust response to cyber threats. However, successful implementation will require concerted efforts from all member states, balancing law enforcement needs with the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms.

Section B: What is Criminalized Under the Proposed Convention

The Draft United Nations Convention against Cybercrime specifically criminalizes various acts related to cybercrime, aiming to create a unified legal framework among member states. The following acts are outlined for criminalization under the national laws of member states:

1. Illegal Access: Unauthorized access to an information and communications technology (ICT) system.
2. Illegal Interception: Unauthorized interception of non-public transmissions of computer data to, from, or within an ICT system.
3. Data Interference: Unauthorized damaging, deletion, deterioration, alteration, or suppression of computer data.
4. System Interference: Unauthorized hindrance of the functioning of an ICT system, including the input, transmission, damage, deletion, deterioration, alteration, or suppression of computer data.
5. Misuse of Devices: Production, sale, procurement for use, import, distribution, or otherwise making available:
   • Devices, including computer programs, designed or adapted primarily for the purpose of committing any of the offenses established in accordance with the Convention.
   • Passwords, access codes, or similar data by which the whole or any part of an ICT system is capable of being accessed with the intent that it be used for committing any of the offenses established in accordance with the Convention.
6. Computer-Related Forgery: Inputting, altering, deleting, or suppressing computer data, resulting in inauthentic data with the intent that it be considered or acted upon as if it were authentic, regardless of whether or not the data is directly readable and intelligible.
7. Computer-Related Fraud: Causing a loss of property to another person by:
   • Any input, alteration, deletion, or suppression of computer data.
   • Any interference with the functioning of an ICT system, with fraudulent or dishonest intent of procuring, without right, an economic benefit for oneself or another person.
8. Offenses Related to Child Pornography: Including the production, distribution, offering, dissemination, procurement, and possession of child pornography through ICT systems.
9. Offenses Related to Copyright and Related Rights: Infringement of copyright and related rights, including reproduction, distribution, transmission, and making available of works protected by copyright without right.
10. Offenses Related to Identity Theft: Including the intentional transfer, use, or possession of a means of identification of another person with the intent to commit, aid, or abet unlawful activity.
11. Offenses Related to Racism and Xenophobia: Distribution of racist and xenophobic material through ICT systems, as well as threats and insults of a racist and xenophobic nature through ICT systems.

The Convention mandates that member states adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish these acts as criminal offenses under their domestic laws, thereby harmonizing the legal approach to combating cybercrime globally.

Section C: Comparison of Pros and Cons of this Proposed United Nations Convention

1. Pros of the Proposed United Nations Convention Against Cybercrime

International Standardization: Pro: The convention provides a unified legal framework, encouraging member states to harmonize their cybercrime laws. This standardization facilitates international cooperation and makes it easier to combat transnational cybercrime.

Comprehensive Coverage: Pro: The convention addresses a wide range of cybercrimes, including illegal access, data and system interference, misuse of devices, computer-related fraud and forgery, offenses related to child pornography, and identity theft. This comprehensive approach ensures that various facets of cybercrime are covered.

Protection of Children: Pro: Specific provisions targeting offenses related to child pornography enhance the protection of children online, making it a crucial aspect of the convention.

Enhanced Cooperation: Pro: By establishing common legal definitions and frameworks, the convention promotes better cooperation among member states, enabling more effective cross-border investigations and prosecutions.

Capacity Building: Pro: The convention emphasizes the importance of capacity building, helping member states develop the necessary technical, legal, and administrative capabilities to effectively combat cybercrime.

Victim Protection: Pro: Provisions related to identity theft and the misuse of personal data help protect individuals from the personal and financial impacts of cybercrime.

Balancing Privacy and Security: Pro: The convention aims to balance the need for security and law enforcement with the protection of individual privacy rights, ensuring that measures against cybercrime do not infringe on personal freedoms.

2. Cons of the Proposed United Nations Convention Against Cybercrime

Implementation Challenges: Con: Varying levels of development and resources among member states may lead to inconsistent implementation and enforcement of the convention’s provisions.

Sovereignty Concerns: Con: Some member states might perceive the convention as an infringement on their sovereignty, especially regarding the enforcement of international legal standards within their domestic legal systems.

Jurisdictional Issues: Con: Cybercrime often involves multiple jurisdictions, leading to potential conflicts over which country has the authority to investigate and prosecute offenders. The convention may not fully address these jurisdictional challenges.

Resource Constraints: Con: Developing countries may lack the necessary resources and infrastructure to fully comply with and enforce the convention’s provisions, leading to gaps in the global fight against cybercrime.

Potential for Misuse: Con: The broad definitions of certain offenses, such as those related to terrorism and hate speech, could be misused by some governments to suppress political dissent and freedom of expression.

Privacy Concerns: Con: While the convention aims to balance privacy and security, some provisions, particularly those related to surveillance and data retention, might raise concerns about potential overreach and infringement on individual privacy rights.

Dependence on Existing Infrastructure: Con: The effectiveness of the convention relies heavily on the existing legal and technological infrastructure of member states. Countries with outdated or inadequate infrastructure may struggle to meet the convention’s requirements.

3. Conclusion:

The United Nations Convention against Cybercrime offers a robust framework for addressing the growing threat of cybercrime on a global scale. Its comprehensive coverage, focus on international cooperation and emphasis on protecting vulnerable populations are significant advantages. However, challenges related to implementation, jurisdiction, resource constraints, and potential misuse highlight the need for careful consideration and balanced approaches to ensure the convention’s effectiveness and fairness. Addressing these challenges will be crucial to realizing the full potential of this international legal instrument in combating cybercrime.

Section D: Specific Cybercrime Victim Support or Assistance Requirements under the Proposed United Nations Convention Against Cybercrime

The United Nations Convention against Cybercrime, as outlined in the document, includes provisions aimed at addressing various aspects of cybercrime, but it does not explicitly provide detailed requirements for victim support or assistance. However, there are certain elements within the convention that indirectly contribute to victim support. Here are some points to consider:

1. Specific Provisions Related to Victim Support:

Protection of Children: The convention includes provisions specifically targeting offenses related to child pornography, which indirectly supports child victims by criminalizing activities that exploit and harm them.

Identity Theft and Data Misuse: By addressing offenses related to identity theft and the misuse of personal data, the convention helps protect individuals from the personal and financial impacts of these crimes. This indirectly supports victims by reducing the prevalence of such crimes.

Legal Remedies and Redress: While not explicitly detailed in the convention, the establishment of clear legal frameworks and definitions for cybercrimes can facilitate victims’ access to legal remedies and redress. Member states are encouraged to create effective legal mechanisms to address the harm caused to victims.

2. Indirect Support Mechanisms:

Capacity Building: The emphasis on capacity building helps member states develop the necessary technical, legal, and administrative capabilities to combat cybercrime. This, in turn, can improve the overall response to cybercrime and support victims more effectively.

Enhanced Cooperation: The promotion of international cooperation among member states facilitates cross-border investigations and prosecutions. This can lead to more effective resolution of cases and potentially better outcomes for victims.

Balancing Privacy and Security: The convention’s aim to balance security measures with the protection of individual privacy rights ensures that efforts to combat cybercrime do not infringe on victims’ personal freedoms. This balance is crucial in maintaining trust in the legal system and in ensuring that victims feel protected and supported.

3. Areas for Improvement:

Explicit Victim Support Provisions: The convention could be strengthened by including explicit requirements for victim support and assistance, such as mandatory counseling services, financial compensation mechanisms, and dedicated victim support units within law enforcement agencies.

Comprehensive Victim Assistance Frameworks: Developing comprehensive frameworks that outline specific support services for victims of cybercrime, including psychological support, legal aid, and financial restitution, would enhance the convention’s impact on victim protection.

Victim-Centered Approach: Incorporating a victim-centered approach in the convention would ensure that the needs and rights of victims are prioritized. This could involve regular assessments of victim support services and the integration of victim feedback into policy development.

4. Conclusion:

While the United Nations Convention against Cybercrime provides a robust framework for addressing various aspects of cybercrime, it lacks explicit provisions for direct victim support and assistance. The focus is primarily on criminalizing cyber offenses and enhancing international cooperation and capacity building. To better support victims, future iterations of the convention or supplementary guidelines could include detailed requirements for victim assistance, ensuring that individuals affected by cybercrime receive the necessary support and protection.

Section E: How the Proposed Convention Can Facilitate Increased Law Enforcement Action Across Boarders for Transnational Criminals or Criminal Organizations

The United Nations Convention against Cybercrime facilitates increased law enforcement action across borders for transnational criminals or criminal organizations through several key mechanisms. These mechanisms are designed to enhance international cooperation, streamline investigative processes, and ensure a coordinated global response to cybercrime. Here’s how the convention achieves this:

1. International Cooperation Framework:

Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA): The convention establishes procedures for mutual legal assistance in criminal matters related to cybercrime. This allows countries to request and provide assistance in gathering evidence, executing search warrants, and conducting other legal procedures necessary for investigations and prosecutions. Example: A country can request digital evidence stored in another country, and the requested country is obligated to assist under the convention’s framework.

Extradition Provisions: The convention includes provisions for the extradition of individuals charged with cybercrime offenses. It simplifies the process by establishing a common legal basis for extradition requests among member states. Example: If a cybercriminal operates from Country A but targets victims in Country B, Country B can request the extradition of the criminal from Country A under the convention’s rules.

2. Enhanced Communication and Coordination:

24/7 Network of Contact Points: The convention mandates the establishment of a 24/7 network of national contact points to ensure rapid response and coordination in cybercrime investigations. This network facilitates real-time information sharing and urgent cooperation. Example: Law enforcement agencies can quickly contact their counterparts in other countries to share critical information or request immediate assistance.

Joint Investigations and Task Forces: The convention encourages the formation of joint investigation teams and task forces comprising law enforcement officials from multiple countries. These teams can collaborate on complex transnational cases, pooling resources and expertise. Example: A joint task force might be created to dismantle a large-scale cybercrime organization operating in multiple countries.

3. Standardized Legal and Procedural Frameworks:

Harmonization of Cybercrime Laws: By providing a standardized set of definitions and legal frameworks for cybercrime offenses, the convention helps harmonize laws across member states. This reduces legal discrepancies and facilitates smoother cooperation. Example: All member states agree on what constitutes hacking, identity theft, or digital fraud, making it easier to prosecute offenders across borders.

Capacity Building and Training: The convention emphasizes capacity building and training for law enforcement and judicial officials. It aims to equip them with the necessary skills and knowledge to handle cybercrime cases effectively, including those with international dimensions. Example: Workshops and training programs on digital forensics, evidence handling, and international legal procedures can be conducted for law enforcement personnel.

4. Information Sharing and Intelligence Exchange:

Cybercrime Databases and Portals: The convention supports the creation of centralized databases and secure portals for sharing information on cybercrime trends, known offenders, and ongoing investigations. Example: A database of known cybercriminals and their methods can help law enforcement agencies identify patterns and link cases across borders.

Public-Private Partnerships: Encouraging collaboration between law enforcement agencies and private sector entities, such as tech companies and internet service providers, to share intelligence and technical expertise. Example: Private companies can alert law enforcement about suspicious activities on their platforms, and law enforcement can request data to support investigations.

5. Provisions for Protecting and Using Digital Evidence:

Guidelines for Digital Evidence Collection and Preservation: The convention provides guidelines for the proper collection, preservation, and sharing of digital evidence. This ensures that evidence gathered in one country is admissible in another, facilitating cross-border investigations. Example: A digital trail of a financial transaction can be preserved in one country and used as evidence in court in another country.

6. Conclusion:

The United Nations Convention against Cybercrime enhances law enforcement action across borders by establishing robust mechanisms for cooperation, communication, and legal harmonization. These provisions ensure that countries can effectively collaborate to combat transnational cybercrime, bringing perpetrators to justice and protecting global digital infrastructure. By standardizing legal frameworks, facilitating rapid information exchange, and encouraging joint operations, the convention addresses the complexities of modern cyber threats and strengthens the global response to cybercrime.

Section F: Limits on Law Enforcement or Criminal Justice Practices in Countries such as the United States or the EU

The United Nations Convention against Cybercrime aims to standardize and enhance global responses to cybercrime, but it can also impose certain limitations and challenges on law enforcement and criminal justice practices in countries like the United States or the European Union. Here are some potential limitations and challenges:

1. Sovereignty and Jurisdictional Issues:

National Sovereignty: The convention may be perceived as infringing on national sovereignty by requiring countries to adhere to international standards and procedures. This can be particularly sensitive for countries with strong legal traditions and established practices, such as the U.S. and EU member states. Example: The U.S. and EU might resist provisions that they feel undermine their control over domestic law enforcement activities.

Jurisdictional Conflicts: The convention’s requirements for mutual legal assistance and extradition could lead to conflicts between national laws and international obligations. Countries might face challenges when their domestic laws differ from the convention’s standards. Example: A country may refuse to extradite a suspect if the requesting country’s legal system does not align with its own principles or if the offense is not recognized as a crime under its domestic law.

2. Privacy and Civil Liberties Concerns:

Data Privacy Regulations: The EU, with its stringent data protection laws like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), might find some provisions of the convention challenging to implement. The convention’s requirements for data sharing and preservation could conflict with national and regional privacy laws. Example: The GDPR imposes strict conditions on data transfers outside the EU, which might complicate compliance with international requests for data under the convention.

Surveillance and Civil Liberties: The convention’s emphasis on real-time data sharing and surveillance capabilities could raise concerns about the potential for abuse and the impact on civil liberties. Countries with robust civil rights protections may need to navigate these concerns carefully. Example: Law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and EU might face legal challenges or public pushback against measures perceived as infringing on individual privacy rights.

3. Resource and Capacity Constraints:

Implementation Costs: Adhering to the convention’s standards for mutual legal assistance, extradition, and cybercrime investigation can be resource-intensive. Countries might need to invest significantly in technology, training, and infrastructure to comply with the convention. Example: Smaller EU member states might struggle with the financial and logistical demands of implementing the convention’s requirements.

Training and Expertise: The convention’s focus on advanced cybercrime investigation techniques requires specialized training and expertise. Law enforcement agencies may face challenges in building and maintaining the necessary skill sets. Example: Ensuring that law enforcement personnel are adequately trained in digital forensics and international legal procedures can be a significant undertaking.

4. Legal and Procedural Harmonization:

Differences in Legal Systems: The U.S. and EU member states have diverse legal systems and procedural norms. Harmonizing these with the convention’s standards might require significant legal reforms and adjustments. Example: The adversarial legal system in the U.S. might find it challenging to align with the procedural requirements of the convention, which might be based on different legal traditions.

Standardization Challenges: The convention’s push for standardized definitions and legal frameworks for cybercrime could conflict with existing national laws. Countries might need to revise their legislation to meet the convention’s standards. Example: Legal definitions of cybercrimes like hacking or identity theft might vary across jurisdictions, necessitating legislative changes to achieve compliance with the convention.

5. Political and Diplomatic Considerations:

Diplomatic Relations: Compliance with the convention might strain diplomatic relations, particularly if countries perceive certain provisions as biased or disproportionately beneficial to specific nations. Example: Countries might be reluctant to cooperate fully if they believe that the convention’s enforcement mechanisms favor certain regions or political blocs.

Balancing International and Domestic Priorities: Countries like the U.S. and those in the EU must balance their international obligations with domestic priorities. The convention’s requirements might sometimes clash with national policy goals or public sentiment. Example: Domestic political pressures might influence how a country implements and adheres to the convention’s provisions, potentially leading to selective compliance.

6. Conclusion:

While the United Nations Convention against Cybercrime provides a comprehensive framework for international cooperation in combating cybercrime, it also presents several challenges and limitations for law enforcement and criminal justice practices in countries like the United States and those in the European Union. These challenges include issues related to sovereignty, privacy, resource constraints, legal harmonization, and political considerations. Addressing these challenges will require careful navigation and balanced approaches to ensure effective implementation while respecting national laws and protecting civil liberties.

Section G: SCARS Institute Support & Position

The decision for SCARS (Society of Citizens Against Relationship Scams) to support the new United Nations Convention against Cybercrime should be based on a thorough analysis of how the convention aligns with SCARS’ mission and objectives, which include protecting scam victims and advocating for stronger laws and enforcement against scammers. Here is a balanced analysis of the potential benefits and drawbacks of supporting the convention:

1. Benefits of Supporting the Convention:

Enhanced International Cooperation:

Global Response: The convention promotes international cooperation, which is crucial for addressing transnational cybercrime effectively. Many scams originate from abroad, and enhanced cooperation can lead to better tracking, investigation, and prosecution of scammers.

Extradition and Legal Assistance: The provisions for mutual legal assistance and extradition can help ensure that scammers operating across borders are brought to justice, which can be challenging under current fragmented legal frameworks.

Standardization of Laws:

Uniform Legal Framework: The convention aims to harmonize cybercrime laws across countries, reducing legal loopholes that scammers exploit. This can lead to more consistent and predictable legal outcomes for scam victims seeking justice.

Clear Definitions: By providing standardized definitions of cybercrimes, the convention can help ensure that actions considered illegal in one country are also recognized as crimes in others.

Victim Support and Protection:

Focus on Victims: The convention includes provisions that emphasize the importance of protecting and supporting victims of cybercrime. This aligns with SCARS’ mission to advocate for scam victims and ensure they receive the necessary support.

Data Protection: Strengthening data protection laws can help prevent scammers from easily accessing personal information, reducing the risk of victimization.

Improved Law Enforcement Capabilities:

Training and Resources: The convention encourages the development of specialized training and resources for law enforcement, enhancing their ability to investigate and combat cybercrime effectively.

Real-Time Data Sharing: Provisions for real-time data sharing can improve the speed and efficiency of law enforcement responses to cybercrime, potentially reducing the number of scam victims.

2. Drawbacks and Concerns:

Implementation Challenges:

Resource Constraints: Implementing the convention’s requirements may be resource-intensive, potentially diverting funds and attention from other important areas.

Training and Expertise: Developing the necessary expertise and training for law enforcement may take time, during which scam victims might not see immediate benefits.

Privacy and Civil Liberties:

Balancing Act: There are concerns that some provisions related to surveillance and data sharing could infringe on individual privacy rights. SCARS must consider whether these measures are appropriately balanced against the need for security and victim protection.

Data Protection Conflicts: The convention’s requirements might conflict with existing data protection laws in regions like the EU, leading to potential legal and operational challenges.

Jurisdictional Issues:

Sovereignty Concerns: Countries may resist provisions they perceive as infringing on their sovereignty, leading to inconsistent implementation and cooperation.

Legal Harmonization: Achieving legal harmonization might require significant changes to existing laws, which can be a slow and politically challenging process.

3. SCARS Institute Position:

SCARS will support the new United Nations Convention against Cybercrime, given its potential to significantly enhance international cooperation, standardize cybercrime laws, and improve protections for scam victims. However, support should be contingent on:

Ensuring Privacy Protections: Advocating for a balanced approach that protects victims while also respecting individual privacy rights.

Addressing Implementation Challenges: Pushing for sufficient resources and training for law enforcement to effectively implement the convention’s provisions.

Monitoring Impact: Continuously assessing the impact of the convention on scam victims and advocating for adjustments as necessary to ensure that their needs are being met.

By supporting the convention with these considerations in mind, SCARS can help aid in building a more coordinated and effective global response to cybercrime while advocating for the rights and protection of scam victims.