A talker had posted about this, any talker involved?

[jameson]

@Luther12

These guys should be hired by the Cyber Crimes Unit, hehehe…

why should they be hired,…the fact that they got caught shows that they’re not good enough…

[system]

@jameson

why should they be hired,…the fact that they got caught shows that they’re not good enough…

Wafanye community service huko kiasi. When was the last time our cops solved a cyber crime?

[Meria_Mata]

@Luther12

These guys should be hired by the Cyber Crimes Unit, hehehe…

exactly, and what does our system do, they make them work against us instead of with us. Just for hacking safaricom they should have been awarded a medal

[highschooler]

i posted about it… wah… hawa wamejikaranga sana. though hii ni kama deal gone bad

[system]

@highschooler

i posted about it… wah… hawa wamejikaranga sana. though hii ni kama deal gone bad

My sentiments too. These look like fall guys for the big fish. Word is some of the senior managers dismissed a while ago were let go for not too dissimilar issues, as well as MPESA fraud (stealing from customer a/cs) and stealing subscribers’ airtime.

[highschooler]

Wacha safaricom waibiwe wamezoea kuibiana

[dingoo_wa_ingoo]

@Deorro

10 crack rules by BIG.

Unaitambua eh?

[system]

@dingoo_wa_ingoo

Unaitambua eh?

Got the whole album

[system]

Huyu Mutuku naona anaonewa… Anakaa ni @Aurak juu yeye ndio msee wa gatheti.

[Cypher254]

@Deorro

10 crack rules by BIG.

Crack commandments

[dingoo_wa_ingoo]

@Luther12

Mbaya kabisa. Ever had a look at The sale of Goods Act? The onus usually is on the buyer to verify and ascertain that the seller has a legitimate title (i.e. ownership) to whatever they are selling, prior to purchase. That’s why handling stolen goods is a crime.

Lol! I beg to differ. The applicability of the Sale of Goods Act is confined to corporeal property… chattels… moveable property… things that can be touched and moved… except land and things permanently affixed to land. Look at Section 2. I don’t think airtime would fall under this category of goods.

The crime of handling stolen property is set out in Section 322 of the Penal Code. A person is guilty of handling stolen property if:-

1. He did not steal the goods but knew or had reason to believe them to be stolen goods.

2. He dishonestly receives or retains the goods, or dishonestly carries out or assists in, retention, removal, disposal or sale of the goods by or for the benefit of another person, or if he makes arrangements to do so.

So, someone receives 20k worth of airtime. The prosecution must prove that the recipient knew or had reason to believe that the airtime was stolen. It must also be proved that the recipient received it dishonestly. Alternatively, there must also be evidence that the recipient received the airtime in order to assist in its retention, removal, disposal or sale for someone’s benefit. Failure to prove either limb 1 or 2 of the offence and the recipient walks. I think any lawyer worth his salt could get anyone charged with an offence under these circumstances out. Easily.

[kijanamrefu]

@dingoo_wa_ingoo

Lol! I beg to differ. The applicability of the Sale of Goods Act is confined to corporeal property… chattels… moveable property… things that can be touched and moved… except land and things permanently affixed to land. Look at Section 2. I don’t think airtime would fall under this category of goods.

The crime of handling stolen property is set out in Section 322 of the Penal Code. A person is guilty of handling stolen property if:-

1. He did not steal the goods but knew or had reason to believe them to be stolen goods.

2. He dishonestly receives or retains the goods, or dishonestly carries out or assists in, retention, removal, disposal or sale of the goods by or for the benefit of another person, or if he makes arrangements to do so.

So, someone receives 20k worth of airtime. The prosecution must prove that the recipient knew or had reason to believe that the airtime was stolen. It must also be proved that the recipient received it dishonestly. Alternatively, there must also be evidence that the recipient received the airtime in order to assist in its retention, removal, disposal or sale. Failure to prove either limb 1 or 2 of the offence and the recipient walks. I think any lawyer worth his salt could get anyone charged with an offence under these circumstances out. Easily.

Interesting. Are there seperate laws for cyber crimes?

[dingoo_wa_ingoo]

@kijanamrefu

Interesting. Are there seperate laws for cyber crimes?

There is a Bill. The law has not been enacted.