Blogs of Research and reports

Cyberbullying: When Does Online Behavior Become a Crime?

The internet and social media have become an essential part of daily life. However, this digital space has sometimes turned into a fertile environment for the spread of harmful behaviors such as cyberbullying, especially among children and adolescents.

The danger of cyberbullying lies in the fact that it is not limited to offensive comments or mocking others. It can escalate into organized campaigns of insults, defamation, or the publication of personal information with the intent of harming the victim.

The seriousness of this phenomenon has pushed many countries to search for legal ways to confront it, particularly after cases of suicide among teenagers who were subjected to continuous online bullying.

From a legal perspective, cyberbullying may fall under several crimes stipulated in criminal laws, such as defamation, threats, or publishing private information without the consent of its owner.

However, the legal challenge lies in determining the boundary between freedom of expression on one hand and criminal behavior on the other. Not every sarcastic comment or harsh criticism can be considered a crime; otherwise, the law would become a tool to restrict freedom of opinion.

Therefore, the legal standard often depends on the severity of the harm caused to the victim, as well as the criminal intent of the perpetrator—meaning whether their aim was to harm or defame the other person.

With the widespread use of social media platforms, an important question remains for legislators:

Are traditional criminal laws sufficient to address the phenomenon of cyberbullying, or does the digital space require new legislation that better reflects its nature?

Ten days ago, news was published about the British Parliament discussing a legal amendment that would allow the imprisonment of officials from social media and technology companies if they fail to protect children from harmful content on the internet. This discussion came in response to growing demands to protect children after a child was killed by a criminal he met through a website connected to an online game.

The news passed quietly. Some people may have supported imprisoning the heads of internet companies out of sympathy for children, or perhaps out of resentment toward those companies. Others might argue about the effectiveness of such a law that imprisons company executives, either because of the practical difficulty of controlling these companies that operate across national jurisdictions, or because the issue is fundamentally subject to economic considerations.

I have not reviewed the draft law to understand its details. However, the approval of the principle of imprisonment—not merely compensation—in this type of case (which, to the best of my knowledge, is something new) implies assuming the criminal liability of company executives for crimes committed by others in cyberspace—the internet. In my view, this contradicts the principles of criminal justice and the principle of the personal nature of punishment, which means—among other things—that a person cannot be held responsible for a crime nor subjected to its punishment unless they are the perpetrator or a participant in it, whether through agreement or assistance.

In its legal meaning, a crime consists of violating a penal provision. Its occurrence requires either an act or an omission that results in this violation, which we refer to as the material act (actus reus). This violation must also be accompanied by the perpetrator’s knowledge and intent to commit the crime, which we call criminal intent (mens rea) or the mental element.

Under this concept, the entity normally considered capable of bearing criminal liability is the natural person, that is, the human being. Accordingly, criminal liability primarily applies to natural persons. However, there has been a growing trend toward recognizing the criminal liability of legal persons—such as companies—particularly through what has become known as the person responsible for the actual management of the legal entity.

This approach can be observed in several cases, such as the liability of the person undertaking the effective management of a company under the Capital Market Law No. 95 of 1992, or the liability of the editor-in-chief under the Press and Media Law, and previously under the Penal Code. It can also be seen in the liability of service providers and managers of websites and electronic accounts under the Cybercrime Law.

However, holding the person responsible for the actual management of a legal entity (the company) criminally liable remains subject to the established rules of criminal liability. These rules require that the person being held criminally responsible must personally have committed the crime, either as a participant through assistance or agreement, and must have had knowledge of it so that criminal intent is established.

Accordingly, the French Court of Cassation ruled in one of its decisions that criminal liability did not apply to an editor-in-chief for statements made during live broadcast programs, due to the absence of proof that the editor-in-chief—the person effectively responsible—had prior knowledge that the speaker on air would utter legally punishable statements.

These same principles were taken into account when the Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt upheld the constitutionality of Article 68 of the Capital Market Law No. 95 of 1992. In its ruling, the Court stated that the legislator, in order to ensure that companies operating in the capital market comply with legislative regulations—thereby protecting the rights of their clients and positively impacting the functioning of the capital market—made the basis of liability for this crime the proven responsibility of the person exercising actual management of the company within the limits of the powers granted to them. That person is held responsible for their own actions, even if the crime was committed in the name of the company, for its benefit, and using one of its means, without the provision establishing liability for the acts of others.

Between Freedom of Photography and Violation of Privacy… Where Does the Law Stand? 

In the era of smartphones and social media, photography has become a part of everyday life. With the press of a button, anyone can capture a moment and share it with hundreds or even thousands of followers. However, this ease of capturing and sharing images has opened the door to a growing social problem: violating the privacy of others by photographing or publishing their images without their consent.

This phenomenon occurs in many places: on the streets, in public transportation, in restaurants, and even within educational institutions. A person may secretly photograph others and then post the photos or videos on social media to mock them or to gain more views. In some cases, the situation escalates into public bullying or defamation, causing significant psychological harm to the victim.

The seriousness of this problem is not limited to social embarrassment; it can also lead to serious psychological and legal consequences. A person whose photos are taken or shared without consent may face bullying, damage to their reputation, or even problems in their professional or family life.

Here, the law plays an important role in drawing clear boundaries between the freedom to use technology and individuals’ right to privacy. Many legal systems criminalize photographing, recording, or publishing images of individuals without their consent in certain situations, especially when the intention is defamation, harassment, or violation of private life.

In Egypt, for example, the law penalizes violations of personal privacy. A person who photographs or publishes content related to others without their permission may face fines or imprisonment if the act results in harm or constitutes an infringement of privacy.

However, the law alone is not enough. Addressing this issue also requires greater social awareness that privacy is a fundamental right for every individual and that technology should not be used as a tool for harassment or defamation. People must also realize that publishing content on the internet does not mean it is free from legal consequences.

In the end, a simple click on a phone may seem harmless, but it can turn into a legal offense if it harms the dignity of others or violates their privacy. Therefore, the real solution lies in combining the power of the law with social awareness to ensure that technology is used in a way that respects the rights of everyone.

The relationship between a landlord and a tenant is one of the most common legal relationships in everyday life. Many people rely on lease agreements, whether for residential purposes or for running commercial activities. Despite the apparent simplicity of this relationship, many disputes can arise between the two parties, especially when the terms of the contract are unclear or when one of the parties fails to comply with what was agreed upon.

Problems often begin when disagreements arise over certain matters such as the rental value, the duration of the contract, maintenance responsibilities, or when one of the parties wishes to terminate the contract before its agreed expiration date. In some cases, a tenant may fail to pay the rent on time, or a landlord may attempt to end the rental relationship suddenly without following the proper legal procedures.

Here, the lease agreement plays a crucial role as a legal document that regulates the relationship between both parties and defines their rights and obligations. A lease contract should clearly include a number of essential clauses such as the duration of the lease, the rental amount, the method of payment, the conditions for using the rented property, as well as the circumstances under which the contract may be terminated.

The law is keen to protect the rights of both landlords and tenants. A landlord has the right to receive the agreed rental payment on time and may take legal action if the tenant fails to pay or violates the terms of the agreement. On the other hand, the tenant also enjoys legal rights, including the right to benefit from the property for the entire agreed lease period without facing unlawful eviction.

In the event of a dispute between the two parties, the matter may be referred to the courts to resolve the conflict according to the terms of the contract and the laws governing rental relationships. Therefore, drafting a clear and detailed lease agreement is one of the most important steps to help avoid many potential problems in the future.

In the end, the relationship between landlord and tenant remains based on a balance of rights and obligations. When both parties respect the terms of the contract and comply with the law, they can avoid disputes and maintain a stable and transparent legal relationship.

In light of the widespread use of freezing the assets of defendants in public funds and terrorism cases, preventing them from disposing of or managing them by investigative authorities, the law office of Ahmed Ragab for Legal Consultancy provides a legal overview for interested parties, lawyers, and stakeholders. This overview includes a look at these procedures, including the cases in which investigative authorities may freeze assets, the difference between preventing disposal and preventing management, the individuals whose assets may be frozen, the fate of frozen assets, and procedures for challenging these measures, as follows:

How has the Egyptian legislator regulated the freezing of assets as a precautionary measure?

The Egyptian legislator regulates the freezing of assets—whether by preventing disposal or preventing management—as part of precautionary measures to safeguard the financial rights of the state, which may consist of what the court may order the defendant to return or compensate. Article 208 bis (A) allows precautionary measures on the defendant’s assets. This approach is also reflected in Article 10 of Law No. 62 of 1975 on illicit gains, Law No. 8 of 2015 on terrorist entities, and Law No. 94 of 2015 on combating terrorism.

Article 10 of the Illicit Gains Law (Law No. 62 of 1975, amended in 2015) states:

If, upon examination, strong suspicions of illicit gains are found, the competent authority refers the papers to the People’s Assembly for the President, his deputies, the Prime Minister, his deputies, ministers, and their deputies to follow the procedures stipulated in Laws No. 247 of 1956 and 79 of 1958. For other members of the People’s Assembly, the provisions concerning them apply. For all others subject to this law, the authorities specified in items A, B, and C of Article 5 conduct the investigation. These authorities, when conducting the investigation, have all the powers granted to investigative authorities under the Criminal Procedure Law and may order the defendant or their spouse or minor children to refrain from disposing of all or part of their assets and take precautionary measures to enforce the order. They may also assign the Public Prosecution to investigate specific facts.

The order to prevent disposal must include the appointment of a manager for the frozen assets, measures to preserve their value, and adding returns to the account of the defendant or those covered by the order, after deducting actual management costs not exceeding 10% in favor of the Illicit Gains Authority.

The Illicit Gains Authority must present the order within 30 days of its issuance to the competent Criminal Court, which must set a hearing within the next 30 days, hear the defendant and relevant parties, and issue its judgment within 60 days to either confirm, amend, or cancel the order. If no judgment is issued within 120 days from the order’s issuance, the order is considered null and void.

These precautionary measures are temporary in nature and constitute an exception to general rights and legal principles, especially the presumption of innocence (Article 96 of the Constitution) and the constitutional protection of private property (Article 35 of the Constitution). Therefore, they must always be interpreted narrowly and within the legislative goal, which is to safeguard the state’s financial rights in case the defendant is ordered to return or compensate. Any other interpretation would transform these temporary measures into a penalty.

The legislator, in Articles 208 bis (A) and (B) and amendments made by Law No. 174 of 1998, took care to respect these principles. This followed the Supreme Constitutional Court ruling on 5/10/1996, which deemed parts of Article 208 bis (A) and (B) unconstitutional (Case No. 26 of Judicial Year 12).

What crimes allow precautionary measures on the defendant’s assets?

The legislator limited precautionary measures—preventing disposal or management of assets—to specific crimes due to their exceptional nature and impact on the presumption of innocence and protection of private property. Article 208 bis (A) specifies these crimes as:

• Crimes in Chapter Four, Book Two of the Penal Code, titled “Embezzlement of public funds, assault, and betrayal,” covering Articles 112–119.
• Crimes involving assets owned by the state, public institutions, or public legal entities.
• Crimes requiring the court to order, on its own, the return of funds, compensation, or restitution to the victim.
• Drug offenses and illicit gains.
• Terrorism offenses under Law No. 94 of 2015 or listing as a terrorist under Law No. 8 of 2015.

Who can have their assets frozen as a precautionary measure?

As a general rule, defendants in the crimes specified by law may have their assets frozen. As an exception, the assets of the defendant’s spouse or minor children may also be frozen if there is sufficient evidence that the assets originated from the crime and were transferred to them. In such cases, they must be included in the Public Prosecution request or the Prosecutor General’s order and presented to the competent criminal court.

Who has the authority to issue a freezing order?

The general rule is that asset freezing is decided by the competent criminal courts at the request of the Public Prosecution. As an exception, in urgent cases, the Prosecutor General may issue a temporary freezing order, which must then be presented to the court within a legally defined period to confirm, amend, or cancel it.

For example, under the Criminal Procedure Law, Article 208 bis (A), the Public Prosecution requests a freezing order from the competent criminal court. In urgent cases, the Prosecutor General may issue a temporary order, which must be presented to the court within seven days, or it is null and void.

Similarly, Law No. 8 of 2015 on terrorist entities allows the Prosecutor General to freeze assets of individuals or entities suspected of terrorist activity, and the order must be presented to the competent criminal court within one month for confirmation, amendment, or cancellation.

Law No. 94 of 2015 on combating terrorism confirmed that the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law regarding asset freezing also apply to terrorism cases.

How can freezing orders be challenged?

Article 208 bis (B) provides a specific path for challenging freezing orders:

• Any person subject to a freezing or management ban may file a grievance with the competent criminal court after three months from the order date.
• If the grievance is rejected, they may submit a new grievance every three months.
• The grievance is filed in the court registry, and the court must set a hearing, notify the parties, and decide within 15 days.
• The court may, on its own or upon request, terminate, amend, or modify the order.

Freezing ends upon:

• A final decision of no grounds to prosecute,
• An acquittal, or
• Full execution of financial penalties or compensation.

Dr. Ahmed Fathi Sorour notes in “Al-Waseet fi Qanun Al-Ijraat Al-Jina’iya” that this grievance is a special judicial appeal, separate from standard appeals, and ensures impartiality by requiring a different chamber than the one that issued the freezing order.

What is the meaning of “freezing,” and what is the difference between preventing disposal and preventing management?

• Freezing assets is a legal term meaning temporarily suspending the owner’s ability to control or use the assets.
• Preventing disposal: The owner retains possession but cannot sell, transfer, or otherwise dispose of the assets.
• Preventing management: Control of the assets is transferred to an appointed authority, which manages them under court-defined conditions.

What happens to frozen assets?

The main purpose of freezing is to preserve others’ rights and ensure the state can recover funds or compensation if the defendant is convicted.

• Under preventing disposal, the assets remain in the owner’s possession.
• Under preventing management, control is transferred to a court-appointed manager, who inventories and manages the assets and returns them after the precautionary period along with any profits earned.

Under Law No. 22 of 2018, the Committee for Asset Freezing, Management, and Disposal of Terrorist Groups and Individuals executes court judgments and inventories assets. It may request the court to dispose of the asset and transfer ownership to the state treasury.