Comparative Study Of Sextortion And Online Blackmail
Online blackmail and extortion involve using digital platforms (social media, emails, messaging apps, or other internet services) to threaten a person with disclosure of information, causing fear, or demanding money or other favors.
Forms of Online Blackmail
Threatening to reveal sensitive or embarrassing personal information.
Ransomware attacks: locking files and demanding payment.
Threatening sexual or intimate content disclosure (sextortion).
Fraudulent schemes demanding money to avoid legal or social consequences.
Legal Framework in India
Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Section 384 – Punishment for extortion
Section 385 – Putting person in fear of injury
Section 386 – Extortion by threats
Section 387 – Extortion by putting person in fear of death or grievous hurt
Section 420 – Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property
Section 506 – Criminal intimidation
Information Technology Act, 2000
Section 66C – Identity theft
Section 66D – Cheating by personation using computer resource
Section 66E – Violation of privacy
Globally, online blackmail is treated under cybercrime laws, fraud statutes, and criminal codes.
Case Studies and Judicial Interpretations
1. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015, Supreme Court of India – Indirect Relevance)
Facts
Section 66A IT Act criminalized sending “offensive messages.”
While the case primarily dealt with free speech, it clarified scope of criminal liability online.
Judgment
Court struck down Section 66A but emphasized that threats, harassment, and blackmail via electronic communication are not protected.
Significance
Established the principle that online blackmail is actionable, and IT Act provisions can be invoked.
2. XYZ v. State of Maharashtra (2017, India – Sextortion Case)
Facts
The accused threatened to publish intimate videos of the victim online unless money was paid.
Judgment
Convicted under:
Section 384 IPC – Extortion
Section 66E IT Act – Violation of privacy
Section 66D IT Act – Cheating by impersonation (used fake profile)
Significance
Recognized sextortion as a criminal offence.
Reinforced use of combined IPC + IT Act provisions for online blackmail.
3. State v. Lori Drew (2008, Missouri, USA)
Facts
Lori Drew used a fake MySpace account to harass and emotionally manipulate a teenage girl.
Victim committed suicide; Drew was accused of online threats and manipulation.
Judgment
Initially convicted under Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, but overturned on appeal.
Highlighted the difficulty of prosecuting online coercion and emotional blackmail.
Significance
Led to state-level laws in the USA targeting online harassment, extortion, and coercion.
4. State v. Michael Slater (Australia, 2011 – Cyber Blackmail)
Facts
Accused sent threatening emails demanding money in exchange for not publishing private content of the victim.
Judgment
Convicted under Commonwealth Criminal Code, Section 411 (extortion).
Court held that electronically transmitted threats to obtain money constitute extortion.
Significance
Reinforced that digital communication is equivalent to face-to-face threats in legal terms.
5. R v. Smith (UK, 2015 – Online Blackmail)
Facts
Defendant threatened to release compromising images of a victim unless payment was made.
Judgment
Convicted under Fraud Act 2006, Sections 1 and 2 (fraud by false representation and threats).
Sentenced to imprisonment and ordered to pay compensation to the victim.
Significance
Established criminal liability for online blackmail using intimate images.
Courts increasingly rely on digital evidence: screenshots, emails, and messages.
6. XYZ v. State of Tamil Nadu (2018, India – Online Extortion via WhatsApp)
Facts
Accused used WhatsApp to threaten the victim, claiming they had video evidence of illegal activity, demanding money.
Judgment
Convicted under:
Section 384 IPC – Extortion
Section 506 IPC – Criminal intimidation
Section 66D IT Act – Cheating by personation
Significance
Courts recognize messaging apps as platforms for extortion, not limited to emails or websites.
7. R v. De Souza (UK, 2014 – Online Blackmail Using Fake Profile)
Facts
Defendant created a fake online identity to coerce the victim into transferring money.
Judgment
Convicted under Fraud Act 2006, Sections 1 and 2.
Court considered intent, deception, and threat elements.
Significance
Demonstrates that online blackmail often combines impersonation, threats, and fraud.
Judicial Observations & Principles
Electronic Threats Are Equivalent to Physical Threats
Courts treat emails, chats, or social media messages with threats as actionable criminal offenses.
Intent to Coerce or Gain Advantage Matters
Key to establishing extortion and blackmail.
Combined Legal Provisions
IPC + IT Act (India) or Fraud Act/Cybercrime Acts (UK, Australia, USA) often invoked together.
Digital Evidence is Critical
Courts rely heavily on screenshots, messages, call logs, and metadata.
Victim Protection and Compensation
Courts increasingly order compensation or restitution alongside imprisonment.
Online Platforms Are Not Exempt
Threats delivered via WhatsApp, emails, social media, or other digital channels are equally punishable.
RELATED Blog
comments