Internet law: who gets punished in this scenario?
<p>Just for instance, this is a hypothetical scenario:</p>

<p>• Jack and Dan are two brothers living together in the UK, their apartment rent contract is in Jack's name
• The ISP Internet contract they're using is in Dan's name 
• Jack decides to travel for a few weeks and leaves his phone  (which is registered in Jack's name) with Dan
• Dan uses Jack's phone, connected to their home Wi-Fi, to commit an online crime, while Jack is abroad and unaware of this</p>

<p>Who gets punished? Would Jack's passport having a stamp proving he was out of the country serve as a defence, or is he held responsible because the phone was registered in his name (although the ISP contract is registered in Dan's name)? </p>

<p>There's a confusion in the question between who is <em>responsible</em> for the crime and  who may be <em>prosecuted</em> or <em>punished</em>.</p>

<p>Since Dan committed the crime, he is responsible, and should be tried for it. Jack should not be prosecuted (unless there is a strict liability offence about allowing your account to be misused; such things are under discussion but I don't know of any that actually exist).</p>

<p>However, since law enforcement officers are not clairvoyant, they will investigate the evidence (which shows that Jack's phone was used in this crime), and question Jack; if he can show his innocence, he will not be prosecuted. If he cannot, he might be prosecuted but, since the prosecution cannot prove his guilt, would be acquitted if so.</p>

<p>Whether 'being out of the country' is proof of innocence in an internet crime: whether Jack should tell the police that Dan used the phone: whether Jack should simply say "I had nothing to do with the crime, and it's up to you to prove otherwise": these are points that depend on the specific law, and I would think Jack should consult a lawyer.</p>

criminal-law internet constitutional-law