Summary

The author addresses shortcomings in the wording of the necessary elements of computer crimes in the Penal Code, suggests possibilities for interpreting some of the elements of such crimes and proposes solutions to problems encountered or to be encountered in practice.
The author argues that significant damage as a necessary element of computer sabotage is unjustified, as on Estonia’s accession to the cyber-crime convention, this reservation was not made. The author analyses whether the spread of computer viruses may occur by inaction, how to define the removal of a code, password or any other protective means as a necessary element of such an offence as computer hacking and whether computer tramping is punishable under the Penal Code. Scrutinising the provisions regarding computer-related fraud, the author argues that there is no reference to the illegality of the act. In addition, the author examines whether income not received and non-proprietary damage qualify as damage caused by cyber-crime. To illustrate his positions, the author also briefly outlines the case law in Estonia pertaining to computer crimes.