Electronic Computer Use Fraud Case

The defendant, an employee at a mobile phone retailer (Company B, an agent of Company A), was charged with electronically defrauding Company A by aiding unknown perpetrators in fraudulently obtaining SIM cards. On September 3, 2022, at a sales booth or store in Kokubunji, Tokyo, the perpetrators, impersonating legitimate individuals, attempted to sign mobile service contracts. The defendant allegedly used their ID to log into a tablet, input false information into Company A's server, and created false electromagnetic records, enabling the perpetrators to acquire contractual rights to 10 SIM cards. The defendant was subsequently prosecuted for electronic computer use fraud under Article 246-2 of the Penal Code.

The Tokyo District Court acquitted the defendant on November 12, 2024 (Reiwa 6). The court found that while the fraudulent acts occurred, the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant performed the contract procedures or conspired with the perpetrators. The defendant's testimony was deemed unreliable, but the evidence did not sufficiently establish criminal liability.

The primary disputes were (1) whether the defendant actually performed the contract procedures for the first named individual, and (2) whether the defendant conspired with the perpetrators, knowingly allowing impersonation, and gave false information to the computer that the legitimate individuals were contracting. The court examined whether the defendant's actions constituted aiding and abetting or joint principal offender liability in the computer fraud. Additional issues included whether the defendant had the requisite intent and whether there was sufficient evidence of a conspiratorial agreement.

The case highlighted challenges in prosecuting computer fraud involving identity theft and conspiracy. The acquittal underscored the high burden of proof required for electronic fraud cases, particularly regarding intent and conspiratorial agreements. The ruling may influence future prosecutorial strategies in similar cybercrime cases, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence of direct participation or explicit conspiratorial communication. It also raised awareness about vulnerabilities in mobile contract verification processes and the importance of robust identity checks in retail settings.