Probable Intent in Cybercrime: How Is a Person’s State of Mind Assessed?

Probable intent is a form of criminal intent, Article 64 of Jordan’s Penal Code addresses a result that goes beyond the actor’s purpose where the actor foresaw the possibility of that result and accepted the risk, It is therefore not enough that a result was possible or could have been foreseen; the question is whether the person appreciated the risk and continued while accepting it.

This differs from direct intent, where the result itself is intended, and from negligence, where a person may foresee a risk but does not accept the result, or fails to foresee it despite a duty of care, The legal classification depends on the applicable provision and the facts of each case.

Digital conduct may take place remotely, involve several steps and produce effects that do not reveal intent directly, A harmful result may not have been the actor’s primary objective, raising the question whether the actor foresaw and accepted the risk or whether the result was not anticipated or accepted.

Cybercrime Law No. 17 of 2023 defines specific digital offences, each with its own legal elements, The fact that harm occurred online does not by itself establish probable intent or a particular offence, The relevant provision, conduct, result and required elements must first be identified.

System logs, access times, messages, operating instructions, the sequence of actions and warnings received may help establish what a person knew and did next, These are evidentiary indicators that require verification of their source, integrity and context, and attribution to the relevant person, Their mere presence on a device or account does not alone prove intent.

An IP address or access log does not, by itself, identify the person who used a device or establish awareness of, and acceptance of, a specific result, Technical evidence must be considered with all the circumstances, including shared access, technical error, alternative explanations and the parties’ right to challenge the evidence.

The analysis begins by identifying the conduct and the result protected against by law, It then considers whether the result was seriously foreseeable in the circumstances, whether the actor appreciated that possibility and whether the actor continued despite it, Technical expertise or the dangerous nature of an act may be relevant context, but neither alone proves acceptance of the risk.

Foresight and acceptance are distinct, A person may foresee a malfunction or side effect yet take reasonable steps to prevent it, Continuing after a clear warning or repeating conduct after harm becomes apparent may support a different inference, These are possible indicators, not automatic rules for deciding a case.

Probable intent requires both awareness of the possible result and acceptance of the risk; the mere occurrence of harm or its theoretical foreseeability is not enough, In cybercrime cases, digital indicators may help reconstruct a person’s state of mind, provided they are reliable, connected to the facts and not treated as conclusive assumptions.

This article explains the general concept and does not determine criminal liability in a particular incident, If a complaint or investigation is involved, preserve devices, messages and logs without alteration and consult a lawyer to assess the applicable law, evidence and procedure.