Clarifications about grooming

The facts of the case were as follows (Court of Appeals in Criminal and Misdemeanors matters of the City of Buenos Aires, Division I, “R.D. - section 131 Criminal Code”, July 10, 2017). An individual was accused of committing the crime of “grooming”, penalized in Section 131 of Argentine Criminal Code, because of maintaining certain communications with a minor through an instant messaging service.

Section 131 of Argentine Criminal Code punishes the individual who, by means of electronic communications, contacts a minor with the purpose of committing any crime against his or her sexual integrity.

The defendant requested the annulment of the trial and raised the exception of the inexistence of a statutory description of the crime. The lower court rejected both petitions. This ruling was appealed by the defendant.

Specifically, the defendant stated that the prosecutor did not describe the criminal conduct and that he did not support the claim of intent to commit a sexual crime.

The Court confirmed the ruling of the lower court and rejected the appeal.

The Court explained that “grooming” is a crime which is difficult to prove; consequently, the prosecutor’s description -limited to the analysis of the content and context of the communications- was sufficient to argue that there was a purpose of “committing a crime against the minor’s sexual integrity”.

Furthermore, in connection to the claim of the inexistence of a statutory description of the crime, the Court stated that (i) the crime of “grooming” was incorporated to the Criminal Code by Section 131 and it describes the criminal conduct attributed to the defendant; and (ii) the communications that motivated the claim do not appear to be “innocent, casual or routine”.

Consequently, the Court concluded that the issue should be heard in trial, in order to determine the existence or inexistence of the crime of “grooming”.

This ruling shows that the crime of “grooming” is characterized by the intent of the defendant. For the matter to be heard in trial, the prosecutor can make a description of the crime limited to the analysis of the content and context of the electronic communications, which shows the possible existence of the purpose of committing a crime against the sexual integrity of a minor.