ELEN
Πορνογραφία Ανηλίκων

CHILD PORNOGRAPHY – DEFENCE LAWYER

Defence Strategy: How We Address the Charge (Article 348A of the Penal Code (PK))

A charge of possession or distribution of child pornography material is among the most serious and complex in modern criminal law. At ZIAMPARAS & ASSOCIATES, we do not confine ourselves merely to the legal interpretation of the relevant provisions; we delve deeply into the technical dimension of the case.

Our defence approach focuses on the following pillars:

  • Technical Analysis of Digital Evidence (Digital Forensics): As lawyers with a background in Computer Engineering, we conduct a meticulous analysis of the reports issued by the Cybercrime Prosecution Unit. We examine whether the digital traces (IP addresses) genuinely belong to the defendant, or whether the network was compromised by third parties (Wi-Fi hacking).

  • The “Malicious Software” Defence (Malware Defence): In many cases, illegal material ends up on a computer without the user’s knowledge through viruses (Trojans) or botnets. We investigate the presence of malicious software that could have “planted” the material.

  • Review of the Lawfulness of the Search: We examine whether the seizure of devices and the access to personal data complied with all procedural safeguards and the necessary prosecutorial orders.

  • Demonstrating Lack of Intent: A conviction requires proof that the user was aware of the content and intended to possess it. We highlight cases of incidental storage (e.g. through automatic downloads in applications such as Viber/WhatsApp) which do not establish intent.

  • Absolute Confidentiality and Crisis Management: We understand the social weight of such an accusation. We handle every case with the utmost discretion, safeguarding the personal and professional life of our client.

Do not leave your fate to mere routine legal handling. In cybercrime cases, technical knowledge is the difference between guilt and innocence.

ACQUITTAL JUDGMENT IN CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CASE

A successful acquittal judgment obtained by our firm in a child pornography case before the Athens Mixed Jury Court: Acquittal Judgment Child Pornography Mixed Jury Court

Explanatory Video on Child Pornography

Watch a video on child pornography as a quintessential cybercrime offence:

Perpetrator and Victim of Child Pornography

Child pornography is distinguished, on the basis of its content, into actual, in which real children participate, and virtual, in which drawn sketches of children are depicted. The perpetrator of the offence of trafficking in child pornography material may be any person, regardless of gender or age, that is, in principle, even a minor. The victim is a minor, regardless of gender or other characteristics. A minor is a person who has not yet completed their 18th year of age. Minority can be ascertained even “with the naked eye” through examination of the morphological characteristics of the victim’s body, or it may be considered “a given, for instance in the case of a depiction of an infant’s body”.

Setting the protective age threshold at 18 years, rather than at 15, which is the general age of sexual consent (under Article 339 of the Penal Code (PK)), extends criminal protection from pornographic exploitation across the entire spectrum of minority. In this way, however, a contradiction is created within the legal order, at least in cases of the production, procurement and possession of child pornography material, since while the greater (a sexual act with a minor between 15 and 18 years of age) is unpunished, the lesser (the pornographic exploitation of the minor and the retention of the material) is punished. In other words, while a sexual act with a 16-year-old is unpunished, the pornographic exploitation of a 17-year-old, who exposes their genitals or performs a sexual act, is punishable (under Article 348A of the Penal Code (PK)). The consent of the (minor) victim does not negate the wrongful character of the act, particularly since the person is a minor, who, in the legislator’s view, lacks the maturity of age required for the free disposal of the legal good of sexual freedom for purposes of pornographic exploitation.

Forms of Child Pornography

Child pornography is articulated in the relevant article of the Penal Code (Article 348A PK) in many forms: from a minor misdemeanor (the simple obtaining of access to child pornography) up to a serious felony (the death of the minor). Three tiers of aggravated cases, punishable with sentences of imprisonment of up to ten years, of at least ten years, and of life imprisonment, respectively, are provided for in §§ 4-5 of Article 348A of the Penal Code.

Forensic Laboratory Expert Report on Child Pornography

A key element in the court’s assessment of the perpetrator’s conduct is the Forensic Laboratory Expert Report of the Directorate of Criminal Investigations, together with the corresponding technical opinion submitted on behalf of the defendant. The Expert Report concerns the seized items of evidence: hard drives, laptops, DVDs, mobile phones, USB drives, etc. The files found on these devices will be examined for issues that will determine the defendant’s guilt, as well as the assessment of the sentence. Indicatively:

  1. The content of simply deleted, permanently deleted, and non-deleted files of child pornography material;
  2. The presence or absence of systematic storage of files in a folder/subfolder structure;
  3. The use of cloud storage and external hard drives;
  4. The discovery of messages with minors (sexting);
  5. The exchange of messages with other distributors of child pornography material;
  6. The detection of specialised file-sharing software (torrents);
  7. The detection of identity-concealment software, VPN (Virtual Private Network);
  8. The use of the TOR (The Onion Router) browser for identity concealment;
  9. Installed software for the deletion of file access history;
  10. Installed software for permanent deletion (data wiping) using the method of overwriting information at its storage location, rendering the recovery of the deleted information impossible;
  11. The history of searches for child pornography material on search engines.

Judicial Reality in Child Pornography Cases

In Greece, cases of child pornography production are very few. The majority of cases concern the trafficking and possession of child pornography material. Indeed, in the average case file drawn up against a defendant, we observe that what is usually examined is the possession of a few dozen photographs. Many cases, however, concern young persons who, out of curiosity, visited a website and downloaded one or two photographs, or who downloaded a video clip alongside which child pornography material was downloaded. The lives of these young persons, if they are convicted, are utterly destroyed. Most cases do not concern habitual offenders, but young individuals who, out of curiosity, visited a site and now face an exhausting sentence.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS IN CHILD PORNOGRAPHY TRIALS

1. What are the criminal sanctions for the possession and distribution of child pornography?

The Penal Code (Article 348A) imposes strict penalties for both the possession and the procurement, storage or distribution of material depicting minors in sexual acts. Mere viewing is punishable as a misdemeanor, while possession, distribution, trade or production of the material is escalated to a felony carrying multi-year imprisonment sentences. Case law now also covers material produced through Artificial Intelligence (AI-generated).

2. What is considered “possession” of digital material from a legal standpoint?

Possession is defined as the storage of material on any medium (hard drive, USB, Cloud, mobile phone). A critical legal issue is “knowing” possession. If the material was downloaded automatically (cache files) or was found on the system without the user’s volition (e.g. through malicious software), the legal defence focuses on the lack of intent.

3. How does technical expert analysis affect the outcome of the trial?

Digital expert analysis is the core of the trial. Metadata (creation/modification dates) and system Logs are analysed to determine whether the defendant indeed had access to the material. A lawyer-engineer can identify whether the files were placed on the system by a third party or whether there was Remote Access, thereby refuting the indictment.

4. What is the line of defence in the event of arrest by the Cybercrime Prosecution Unit?

The defence focuses on the validity of the search (seizure of devices, observance of safeguards), the analysis of digital traces, and the contesting of the user’s identification. The fact that a file was located at a particular IP address does not necessarily prove that the holder of the connection is the perpetrator, especially in environments with shared Wi-Fi networks or compromised systems.

Proudly powered by WordPress