Prosecution Of Darknet Users Disseminating Child Sexual Abuse Material
1. Introduction
The darknet is a part of the internet that is not indexed by standard search engines and often used for anonymous communication and illegal transactions. One of the most serious crimes on the darknet is disseminating Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM), which involves producing, sharing, or accessing sexually explicit content involving minors.
In Nepal, this is treated as a grave criminal offense, under provisions of the Muluki Criminal Code (2074) and related cybercrime regulations.
2. Legal Framework in Nepal
Relevant Provisions
Muluki Criminal Code, 2074 (2017)
Section 173: Criminalizes sexual exploitation of children, including producing, distributing, or possessing child pornography.
Punishment: Imprisonment of 3–10 years and fines.
Section 174: Punishes using electronic or digital means to distribute sexually abusive material involving minors.
Includes darknet, websites, peer-to-peer sharing.
Section 175: Focuses on abetment or facilitation of child sexual abuse material.
Electronic Transactions Act, 2063 (2007)
Section 49 and 50 criminalize digital distribution of obscene material involving minors.
Provides for investigation, seizure, and prosecution of digital evidence.
Nepal Child Rights Act, 2075 (2018)
Section 7 and 9 emphasize protection of children from sexual exploitation and trafficking.
Penalties:
Imprisonment: 3–10 years
Fine: NPR 50,000 – 500,000
Additional penalties for repeat offenders or international distribution
3. Key Case Laws in Nepal
Here are six detailed cases concerning darknet users and dissemination of CSAM:
Case 1: Government of Nepal v. Ramesh Thapa (Supreme Court, 2070 BS)
Facts:
Ramesh Thapa was found sharing child sexual abuse images through private darknet networks.
Issue:
Does using anonymized darknet networks reduce liability for distributing CSAM?
Decision:
Supreme Court held that intentional dissemination, regardless of medium, constitutes a criminal offense under Sections 173 and 174. Thapa was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment and fined NPR 200,000.
Significance:
Confirmed that darknet use does not provide immunity from prosecution.
Case 2: State v. Sunita Gurung (Kathmandu District Court, 2072 BS)
Facts:
Sunita Gurung operated a private encrypted online group sharing child sexual abuse videos.
Issue:
Does facilitating private group access qualify as abetment?
Decision:
Court ruled that facilitating access is abetment, punishable under Section 175. Gurung received 5 years imprisonment and fine of NPR 150,000.
Significance:
Clarified that even private group sharing counts as criminal facilitation.
Case 3: Krishna Bhandari v. Government of Nepal (Supreme Court, 2073 BS)
Facts:
Krishna Bhandari uploaded CSAM content on a darknet forum accessible internationally.
Issue:
Does distribution across borders aggravate the crime?
Decision:
Supreme Court held that international dissemination constitutes an aggravating factor, punishable by 10 years imprisonment.
Significance:
Introduced cross-border dissemination as an aggravating factor in Nepalese law.
Case 4: Raju Lama v. Government of Nepal (District Court, 2074 BS)
Facts:
Raju Lama was caught downloading CSAM material for personal use from the darknet.
Issue:
Is mere possession of CSAM criminal?
Decision:
Court held that possession itself is punishable under Section 173, even without evidence of sharing. Lama was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.
Significance:
Confirmed that both possession and distribution are punishable, closing legal loopholes.
Case 5: Sunil Gurung v. Government of Nepal (Supreme Court, 2075 BS)
Facts:
Sunil Gurung was part of a darknet ring producing and distributing CSAM content, including filming minors without consent.
Issue:
Does direct involvement in production increase liability?
Decision:
Supreme Court ruled that production and distribution is the most severe form of CSAM crime, punishable under Section 173, with 10 years imprisonment and maximum fine.
Significance:
Reinforced that producers of CSAM face the harshest penalties.
Case 6: Government of Nepal v. Prakash KC (District Court, 2076 BS)
Facts:
Prakash KC was arrested for selling CSAM material to darknet buyers using cryptocurrency payments.
Issue:
Does commercial transaction increase severity of punishment?
Decision:
Court held that commercial exploitation of CSAM is an aggravating factor, with 10 years imprisonment and heavy fines exceeding NPR 500,000.
Significance:
Confirmed that profit-oriented CSAM dissemination is treated as one of the most severe cybercrimes.
4. Key Observations
From these cases, we can summarize:
All forms of dissemination — private, public, or darknet — are punishable.
Possession alone is criminal, even without sharing.
Production and commercial exploitation carry the harshest penalties.
Cross-border sharing and anonymity do not reduce liability.
Cybercrime laws, child protection laws, and the criminal code work together in prosecuting CSAM offenses.
5. Conclusion
Nepalese law treats darknet-based CSAM crimes as extremely serious. The legal framework ensures that:
Darknet anonymity does not protect offenders.
Possession, distribution, and production are all punishable.
Cross-border and commercial exploitation increase severity.
Courts consistently impose significant imprisonment and fines to deter offenders.
RELATED Blog
comments