المسؤولية الجنائية عن تزوير الهوية الرقمية (دراسة مقارنة)

Abstract

The comparative states—such as Egypt and the United Arab Emirates—have sought to keep pace with digital transformation and rapid technological development. Accordingly, these states introduced a digital identity that enables its holder to access digital services provided by the government and to complete official transactions without resorting to traditional methods of dealing and processing. However, this transformation was neither easy nor smooth; rather, it brought with it many problems and difficulties, foremost among them forgery. This has placed these states before substantial challenges in terms of protection and confrontation, and in avoiding the resulting effects that affect individuals in their lives and property, in addition to harming the state and its reputation domestically or internationally as a result of using forged cards to commit numerous crimes—most notably the financing of terrorism, which has exhausted many states. In Iraq, despite the enormous sums spent in an effort to keep up with this development, a digital identity has not been created; instead, it was replaced with a unified national card that was deemed “digital.” In reality, however, the situation indicates otherwise, given the absence of many of the features characteristic of digital identity, foremost among them the electronic signature and the authentication key. Although the Iraqi legislator did not adopt this card (as a true digital identity), it did not leave forgery without deterrence; rather, it surrounded it with severe penalties for anyone who dares to commit this act. Nevertheless, such severity is not found in the Unified Card Law No. (3) of 2016, as no aggravation of punishment—or proportionality between the act committed and the protected interest—can be observed.