Federal Jurisdiction Limited in Unauthorized Access Cases

In the case “Belsito, Noemí s/ incidente de competencia”, a user of a social network filed a complaint regarding unauthorized access to her account, which resulted in identity theft used to contact third parties and falsely offer to sell them United States dollars.

The local court of ordinary justice declined jurisdiction, considering that the act could fall under the criminal offense in article 153 of the Criminal Code, for which the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction. However, the federal court refused to hear the case, as it found no elements to determine the time, manner, or place of the alleged offense. Consequently, the conflict of jurisdiction was brought before the Argentine Supreme Court.

In its decision, the Supreme Court noted that the evidence showed that unknown individuals, by unlawfully accessing the complainant’s social network account, may have attempted to commit one of the offenses in articles 172 and 173 of the Criminal Code. Therefore, it held that “there are no circumstances in the record that give rise to federal jurisdiction” and, referring to the reasoning in a prior ruling, affirmed that the mere fact that a crime occurs within the scope of social networks or media is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the federal courts. For that to apply, the Court explained, there must be specific harm to a service of public interest, which was not the case here.

Accordingly, since jurisdiction over the prosecution of such offenses has not been transferred to the judiciary of the City of Buenos Aires, the Supreme Court held that jurisdiction lies with the national courts of ordinary jurisdiction in the City, even if they had not intervened in the dispute.