What is the profile of a child pornography distributor? You may have already pictured him. He is solitary and soft, with a particular flair for computers — or perhaps not. He certainly still lives with his parents, having installed himself in the basement. He may have been abused as a child, like Errol Childress in True Detective. Or perhaps not. Many child pornography cases concern not only serial offenders, but mostly young people who, out of curiosity, visited a website.
The stereotype of the classic paedophile that you have seen again and again in Hollywood films, and which we frequently and mistakenly conflate with anyone involved in any way in the distribution of child pornography. But how much do these two figures really have in common in reality?
Example
A successful acquittal obtained by our firm in a child pornography case before the Athens Mixed Jury Court: Acquittal Judgment Child Pornography Mixed Jury Court
Explanatory video describing the most common cybercrimes
THE PERSON WHO DISTRIBUTES CHILD PORNOGRAPHY MATERIAL IS NOT ALWAYS A PAEDOPHILE
While many of us believe that anyone who distributes child pornography material is a paedophile, the reality is more complex. This is because child pornography has now mutated into an extremely lucrative business activity conducted by individuals who are not necessarily sexually deviant. According to Triantafyllia Iliopoulou, doctoral candidate at the University of the Peloponnese specialising in Anti-Crime Policy, with research on the “Modus Operandi of Sexual Offenders Against Minors”, “…child pornography consists of three basic stages: the production of the material, its distribution, and downloading. Although the same people are often involved in all three stages, we now observe that a large proportion of distributors are not sexually attracted to children but become involved in distribution for financial gain. So we are moving away from the stereotype of the classic paedophile.” “Could it be anyone?”, I ask her. “It is a phenomenon cutting across races and social classes, with global dimensions. It can be judges, professors, academics, soldiers, rock stars, police officers, dentists, and anything else you can imagine.”
I contact Panagiotis Chatzipanagiotis, who works at the Minors Department of the Cybercrime Prosecution Division. I ask him to outline the profile of someone who distributes child pornography material. “Due to the complexity of the phenomenon, we cannot speak of a specific profile. It is the man next door, and sometimes it is even people who are beyond any suspicion.”
Antonis Manganas, professor at Panteion University, who specialises in sexual offences and sexual abuse, explains that the only thing we can say with certainty is that they are predominantly men. “It is important to understand, however, that there is a distinction between the person who produces and the person who distributes, or the person who watches or downloads videos and photographs of child pornography.”
However, from a legal standpoint, even under the most recent statute (Law 4267/2014), according to Triantafyllia Iliopoulou, this distinction is not necessarily made clear. “For example, it is stated that ‘whoever intentionally produces, offers, sells, or in any way makes available, distributes, transmits, purchases, procures or possesses child pornography material, or disseminates information through information and communication technology, shall be punished with imprisonment of at least 2 years and a monetary penalty of 50,000 to 300,000 euros.’ The paedophile who possesses the material could fall under this provision, as could the distributor.”
In Greece, cases of child pornography production are minimal. Most cases concern the distribution and possession of child pornographic material. Indeed, in the average case file drawn up against a defendant, we see that what is usually examined is the possession of a few dozen photographs. According to Article 348A, 2007–2008, anyone who has in their possession a single photograph of child pornography is automatically punished with a 50,000 euro fine and 2 years’ imprisonment. Many cases, however, concern young people who out of curiosity visited a website and downloaded one or two photographs. The lives of these young people, if convicted, are utterly destroyed. In any event, paedophilia, as well as anything related to it — for instance, child pornography — is always something abhorrent. But if we consider that many cases do not concern serial offenders, but young people who out of curiosity visited a website, it is a devastating sentence.
Given the enormous traffic to such sites, and the fact that “approximately 80%, if not 90%, of the photographs uploaded to social networks end up on pornographic sites, and that this is also an extremely profitable business”, I wonder how easily the online distribution of child pornography can be curbed, despite the constant operations carried out by the Cybercrime Prosecution Division and the modern software (CPS) now available to the Hellenic Police.
What is noteworthy, in any case, is the breadth of material that child pornography includes, as Triantafyllia Iliopoulou stressed to me. “While the public imagines that the relevant material of collectors consists exclusively of photographs and videos in which children are bound and tortured, in reality a ‘collector’ may collect anything from children’s photographs from magazines and sights — for example, the album cover of the Scorpions’ ‘Virgin Killer‘, could easily be the image of a child pornography collection), nude and semi-nude images from hidden photo shoots, all the way to sadistic photographs.”
Bearing all this in mind, we ought to think twice before posting photographs of underage children on Facebook, because it is almost certain that they will end up on some pornographic sight, and even more so before, even “by mistake”, visiting websites with such unacceptable material.
Part of the article was published on VICE.COM
- See also article Child Pornography
- See also article Reclassification of Child Pornography from Felony to Misdemeanour
- See also article Minor Distributors of Child Pornography
- See also article Legal Practice and Child Pornography
- See also article Profile of a Child Pornography Distributor
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ON THE PROFILE OF A CHILD PORNOGRAPHY DISTRIBUTOR
1. I am charged with possession of material — what penalty do I face?
Article 348A of the Penal Code (PK) provides for possession of child pornography material a sentence of at least one year’s imprisonment and a monetary penalty, while the felony form (distribution, distribution by habit or as a profession) carries imprisonment of up to ten years. In practice, it matters greatly whether the case involves mere curiosity, a few files, or a systematic collection. With a sound legal strategy, the aim is reclassification of the felony as a misdemeanour, recognition of mitigating circumstances (prior honest life, remorse, Article 84 of the Penal Code), suspension of sentence (Article 99 of the Penal Code) or conversion into a monetary penalty. The sentence ultimately imposed is often far below the maximum referred to in the statute.
2. Am I at risk of going to prison over a few files on my computer?
Pre-trial detention remains an exceptional measure and is rarely applied where the defendant has a clean criminal record, settled residence, and professional activity. In most cases involving possession of a few dozen files, restrictive measures are imposed (travel ban, periodic appearance at the police station, bail) or no measures at all. Even in the event of conviction, where the sentence does not exceed three years, suspension is generally granted or it is converted into community service. Those facing the charge as young persons without prior involvement have a real chance of avoiding incarceration.
3. What should I do if the Cybercrime Prosecution Division comes to my home?
From the very first moment of the search, the seizure of devices, or the summons for explanations, the defendant has the right to silence and the right to a lawyer. There is no obligation to disclose access codes, to make spontaneous statements, or to sign documents without legal representation present. Silence does not constitute an admission of guilt and is not assessed against the defendant. Many acquittal judgments are based precisely on the fact that the defendant did not make incriminating statements during the preliminary investigation. Immediate contact with a lawyer specialised in cybercrime is the most critical step.
4. How is the charge contested in court?
In child pornography cases there are many points of technical and legal challenge to the case file. It is examined whether the IP address actually corresponded to the defendant, whether the network was open or shared, whether the files were found in temporary folders from automatic downloading without the defendant’s knowledge, whether there was intent to possess or accidental display via pop-ups and redirects. The lawfulness of the search, the chain of custody of the digital evidence, and the validity of the detection software are all reviewed. Many acquittal judgments, such as the one our firm obtained before the Athens Mixed Jury Court, were based on the absence of intent.
5. How long does such a criminal proceeding last?
From the seizure of devices to a final and irrevocable judgment, the period is usually two to five years. The laboratory examination of the digital data by the Cybercrime Prosecution Division usually takes twelve to twenty-four months. This is followed by the defendant’s statement before the investigating judge or direct referral by bill of indictment summons, the trial at first instance, and a possible appeal. In the meantime, provided no restrictive measures are imposed, the defendant continues his life normally. This time is used to gather technical expert evidence and prepare the defence.
6. Why do I need a specialised lawyer in such a case?
Child pornography cases combine criminal law with deep knowledge of digital technology — peer-to-peer networks, detection software (CPS), hash values, file metadata. The general criminal lawyer often struggles to rebut technical findings. Our firm deals systematically with cybercrime, works with digital expert witnesses, and has obtained acquittal judgments in similar cases, even before the Mixed Jury Court. We undertake the defence from the stage of seizure and preliminary investigation through to the second instance, with the aim of acquittal or the most lenient possible criminal treatment.