Cybercrime Regulation in Pakistan: An Assessment of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 and the Role of Law Enforcement Agencies in Comparative Perspective
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70670/sra.v4i2.2387Keywords:
Cybercrime, Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA), Law Enforcement Agencies, Federal Investigation Agency, Cyber Security, Digital Forensics, Comparative Legal Analysis, Pakistan.Abstract
The use of digital technologies has changed the nature of modern societies in many respects, and it has opened up new avenues for cyber criminals to exploit. States are having to establish broad, all-encompassing legal and institutional strategies to prevent, investigate and prosecute cyber-crimes, which are becoming more sophisticated and large in scale. The present study reviews Pakistan's cybercrime legislative framework in detail with a specific focus on Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 (PECA) and assesses the contribution of the law enforcement agencies in the enforcement and implementation of the cybercrime laws. The study adopts a qualitative doctrinal and comparative legal research approach and examines the cybercrime regime in Pakistan and its comparison with other legal and institutional frameworks of the United Kingdom, the United States, Singapore and the European Union. The analysis shows that PECA offers a fairly broad legislative response to cyber offences, but there are some barriers to effective implementation today, such as a lack of capacity to conduct digital forensic investigations, a lack of certain types of investigators, jurisdictional problems, institutional coordination issues and a lack of public awareness. The comparative assessment highlights how more developed jurisdictions have developed more advanced solutions, including via the use of dedicated cyber security enforcement bodies, a more forward-looking approach to cyber security, greater international cooperation arrangements and institutional and institutional frameworks. Concluding the study, the researchers argue that good governance of cybercrime needs to be more than just a legislative provision and is facilitated by institutional capacity building, technological investments, professional training and cooperation between nations. The article calls for the modernisation of legislation, strengthening of digital forensic tools, creation of a coordinated national mechanism for handling cybercrimes and implementation of international best practices to make the system more effective against the emerging cyber threats to protect fundamental rights and digital security.
References
Academic Sources
• Brenner, S. W. (2010). Cybercrime: Criminal threats from cyberspace. Praeger.
• Chawki, M. (2009). Cybercrime in the digital age. Journal of Information, Law and Technology, 2009(1), 1–20.
• Holt, T. J., Bossler, A. M., & Seigfried-Spellar, K. C. (2018). Cybercrime and digital forensics: An introduction (2nd ed.). Routledge.
• Maras, M. H. (2016). Computer forensics: Cybercriminals, laws and evidence (2nd ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.
• Wall, D. S. (2007). Cybercrime: The transformation of crime in the information age. Polity Press.
• Yar, M. (2018). Cybercrime and society (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
International Conventions and Legal Instruments
• Council of Europe. (2001). Convention on cybercrime (Budapest Convention), ETS No. 185. Council of Europe.
• European Parliament and Council of the European Union. (2013). Directive 2013/40/EU on attacks against information systems.
• European Parliament and Council of the European Union. (2016). General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (Regulation (EU) 2016/679).
• European Parliament and Council of the European Union. (2019). Regulation (EU) 2019/881 on ENISA and on information and communications technology cybersecurity certification (EU Cybersecurity Act).
Pakistan Legislation
• Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002 (Ord. LI of 2002). Government of Pakistan.
• Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974 (Act VIII of 1975). Government of Pakistan.
• Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (Act XLV of 1860). Government of Pakistan.
• Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 (Act XL of 2016). Government of Pakistan.
Foreign Legislation
• Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (1986) (United States).
• Computer Misuse Act 1990, c. 18 (United Kingdom).
• Cybersecurity Act 2018 (No. 9 of 2018) (Singapore).
Government and Institutional Reports
• Cyber Security Agency of Singapore. (2023). Singapore cyber landscape 2023. Government of Singapore.
• Europol. (2023). Internet organised crime threat assessment (IOCTA) 2023. Europol.
• European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA). (2023). ENISA threat landscape 2023. ENISA.
• Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2023). Internet crime report 2023. U.S. Department of Justice.
• INTERPOL. (2023). Global cybercrime strategy. International Criminal Police Organization.
• National Cyber Security Centre. (2023). Annual review 2023. Government of the United Kingdom.
• Pakistan Telecommunication Authority. (2023). Annual report 2022–2023. Government of Pakistan.
• United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2013). Comprehensive study on cybercrime. United Nations.
• United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2023). Cybercrime repository and global programme reports. United Nations.
• United States Cybersecurity Institutions
• Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. (2023). Cybersecurity strategic plan 2023–2025. U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
• Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2023). Cyber strategy. U.S. Department of Justice.
• United Kingdom Cybersecurity Sources
• National Cyber Security Centre. (2022). National cyber strategy 2022. Government of the United Kingdom.
European Union Sources
• European Cybercrime Centre (EC3). (2023). European cybercrime centre annual report. Europol.
• European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA). (2023). Cybersecurity threat landscape report. ENISA.
