Prosecution Of Cyber Blackmail And Extortion Offences

16 Oct 2025 --
0 Comments

Prosecution of Cyber Blackmail and Extortion Offences in Nepal

Legal Framework in Nepal:

Information Technology Act, 2006 (IT Act, 2006):

Section 43: Unauthorized access and damage to computer systems.

Section 66: Computer-related fraud and cybercrime, including blackmail and extortion.

Nepal Penal Code, 2017 (replacing 1963 code):

Section 162: Extortion.

Section 163: Threats to commit crimes for gain.

Section 309: Criminal intimidation.

Electronic Transaction and Evidence Act:

Provides legal recognition of electronic records as evidence in court.

Cyber blackmail and extortion often involve threatening to release sensitive digital content unless the victim pays money or provides favors. Prosecution requires careful collection of digital evidence, witness testimony, and sometimes expert analysis.

1. HMG vs Ram Kumar Thapa (Cyber Blackmail with Photo Threats)

Facts:
The accused hacked into the victim’s social media account and threatened to release private photographs unless the victim paid NPR 500,000. The victim reported the matter to the cyber cell, and the police recovered chat logs and traced the IP address.

Legal Provisions Invoked:

IT Act 2006, Section 66(d) – cyber extortion

Penal Code 2017, Section 162 – extortion

Role of Expert Witness:
A digital forensic expert retrieved deleted messages and logs from the cloud account and confirmed the communication originated from the accused’s device.

Court Decision:
The Supreme Court of Nepal upheld the conviction, emphasizing that digital evidence, when properly authenticated, is admissible. The accused was sentenced to three years in prison and a fine.

Lesson:
Digital forensic evidence is crucial in cyber blackmail cases; IP tracing and recovered logs can directly link the accused to the offense.

2. Sita Shrestha vs Bibek Adhikari (Threat of Online Defamation for Money)

Facts:
The accused created fake social media accounts and threatened to post defamatory content about the victim unless a ransom was paid. The victim filed a complaint at the cybercrime division.

Legal Provisions Invoked:

IT Act, Section 66(d) – cyber extortion

Penal Code, Section 309 – criminal intimidation

Role of Expert Witness:
A cybercrime expert analyzed metadata from screenshots and posts to trace them to the accused’s device.

Court Decision:
The court convicted the accused, noting that even threats without actual release of content constitute extortion under Nepalese law. The court awarded monetary compensation to the victim.

Lesson:
Cyber threats do not require actual dissemination; the intent to extort is sufficient for prosecution.

3. HMG vs Ramesh Bohora (Ransomware Attack and Cyber Extortion)

Facts:
The accused installed ransomware on a company’s server, encrypting data, and demanded payment in cryptocurrency for decryption. The company reported the incident to the police.

Legal Provisions Invoked:

IT Act, Section 66(d) – extortion via electronic means

Penal Code, Section 162 – extortion

Role of Expert Witness:
Digital forensic experts analyzed the ransomware code, identified its origin, and tracked the payment instructions. Their testimony helped link the act to the accused.

Court Decision:
The accused was convicted and sentenced to five years imprisonment and fined. The court emphasized the seriousness of cyber extortion against corporate entities.

Lesson:
Cyber extortion via ransomware is a growing offense, and forensic analysis of malware is crucial for prosecution.

4. Anju KC vs Unknown Accused (Sextortion Case)

Facts:
The victim was threatened with exposure of intimate videos unless she paid money. The perpetrator used fake social media accounts to maintain anonymity.

Legal Provisions Invoked:

IT Act, Section 66(d) – cyber extortion

Penal Code, Section 162 and Section 309

Role of Expert Witness:
Cyber experts traced IP addresses, digital wallets, and device fingerprints to identify the accused.

Court Decision:
Once the accused was identified, the court convicted him for extortion and criminal intimidation. The case set a precedent for prosecuting sextortion in Nepal.

Lesson:
Anonymous cyber threats can be prosecuted using technical digital tracing; Nepalese courts treat sextortion as a serious offense with both criminal and compensatory consequences.

5. HMG vs Krishna Shrestha (Email Blackmail)

Facts:
The accused sent threatening emails demanding money to avoid the release of fabricated allegations against a government official.

Legal Provisions Invoked:

IT Act 2006, Section 66(d) – cyber extortion

Penal Code 2017, Section 162 – extortion

Role of Expert Witness:
An IT expert verified the email headers and traced the source IP address to the accused. The expert also authenticated that the emails were not fabricated after the fact.

Court Decision:
The accused was convicted, demonstrating the court’s recognition of email communication as a legitimate medium for cyber extortion under the IT Act.

Lesson:
Electronic communication such as email is treated as equivalent to a written threat under Nepalese law. Expert verification ensures reliability of digital evidence.

6. HMG vs Sunil Adhikari (Social Media Extortion Case)

Facts:
The accused threatened a business owner via social media messaging apps to pay a sum of money to avoid negative publicity.

Legal Provisions Invoked:

IT Act Section 66(d)

Penal Code Sections 162 and 309

Role of Expert Witness:
A cyber expert traced the messaging app account and recovered deleted chat messages from the victim’s phone.

Court Decision:
The court convicted the accused, highlighting that social media is a common tool for cyber extortion, and forensic evidence is vital to link the accused to the threat.

Lesson:
The role of forensic experts in recovering deleted messages and authenticating them is critical in cyber extortion prosecutions.