The article describes how dutch law enforcement succeeded in bringing a cybercriminal to trial where he (B.) is convicted and will have to serve 15 months in jail.
So far, so good. My question in this matter is about the area I highlighted, which states that he could not be convicted for breaking into a website by performing a SQL injection attack, stealing a 1000 creditcard numbers, although he admitted being guilty in court, because the evidence was collected wrongfully and therefore was not admissed.
What went wrong in a succesfull case?
"Bij het verhoor en in de rechtszaal erkende hij schuld, maar de politie heeft het bewijs niet wettig in handen gekregen. Daarom is hij gedeeltelijk vrijgesproken."
- Cybercrimineel krijgt 15 maanden cel | nu.nl/internet | Het laatste nieuws het eerst op nu.nl (bekijken via Google Sidewiki)
