Photo: Alicia Christin GeraldAccording to the FBI’s 2025 Internet Crime Report, released in April 2026, the Internet Crime Complaint Center received 1,008,597 complaints and recorded approximately $20.9 billion in reported losses. This figure reflects a 26% hike in losses compared with 2024.
These charges include the crimes of identity theft, online fraud, hacking, phishing, cyberstalking, and even more offenses. This list is in no way complete, as computer crimes grow on a daily basis.
Punishment, if convicted, varies depending on the charge but can range from fines and court-ordered reimbursement to imprisonment to community supervision. Defenses can be brought forward that focus on questioning how evidence was obtained, testing the claims of the prosecution, or challenging the idea that the defendant committed the crime intentionally.
Have you been charged with internet crimes? Here is a look at the available defense strategies depending on the specific charges, the evidence, and the circumstances of the case.
A Broad Category With Real Overlap
The definition of “internet crime” is not clear since it refers to offenses like wire fraud and phishing, identity theft, unauthorized access to computer networks, cyberstalking, online solicitation of minors, and possession of illegal images.
Sometimes, the investigation of internet crimes begins with an alert of bank fraud. In other cases, the police operation involves a covert police officer who poses as a teenager in a chat room. Since internet activity often crosses state lines, any such activity may become the focus for local police, the attorney general of the state, and the federal government at the same time.
Defenses for internet crime include mistaken identity, the absence of intent, lack of proof, and challenge to computer forensic evidence. Others include the manner in which electronic evidence was obtained, procedural problems, and the reliability of the evidence in linking the defendant to the crime committed. The outcome will depend on the specific charges and the details of the case at hand.
Digital Evidence Has Soft Spots
Prosecutors rely on evidence from electronic documents due to their apparent objectivity. However, it becomes clear that things are far more complicated than that. While an IP address may indicate that there was activity through a particular internet connection, it does not necessarily identify the individual using the computer.
Malware, among other technical factors, adds another layer of complexity to the situation. For example, a computer infected with malware can download, save, and transmit files without any action on the part of the computer's owner. The timestamps could be misleading, as could metadata and cloud-based file synchronization services.
Defense teams that handle these cases regularly tend to bring in their own forensic examiners for that reason.
According to the Indiana criminal defense firm website https://www.criminaldefenseteam.com/, defense counsel can challenge digital evidence based on how it was collected, preserved, and interpreted.
An expert on the side can examine the drive imaging procedure used by the government, whether the chain of custody stayed secure, and whether the file categorization was performed accurately.
How the Search Happened Matters
Most cases concerning the internet depend on the search that produces the evidence. According to Riley v. California, which was ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2014, police generally must obtain a warrant prior to searching the content of a digital cell phone seized from an arrested person.
Warrants can also be challenged for resting on stale evidence, exceeding the scope ordered by the judge, or using vague descriptions.
Evidence obtained from illegal searches can sometimes still be entered into evidence in certain situations, like when there is good-faith reliance on a warrant. Still, evidence obtained through illegal searches is often excluded.
Intent and Knowledge Carry Weight
Many computer crime laws demand evidence of the defendant’s guilty knowledge or intention. That requirement leaves room for argument in cases built on automated activity.
The file found in a temporary directory through pop-ups or peer-to-peer software tells a different story than the file collected and organized by its owner.
Fraud can also be shown through payment records for online businesses. Fraud may occur through an online business's payment processor without the knowledge of the person involved. Email and online communication, along with timing, can help show who acted with fraudulent intent.
Early Choices After an Investigation Surfaces
Investigations are often underway long before any arrest occurs. A knock on the door by investigators serving a search warrant, a target letter, or seeking a voluntary interview is usually how the investigation starts out. The statements made during this time often wind up becoming exhibits.
Any attempt to destroy hardware or erase accounts after receiving notice of an investigation can worsen a person’s position and lead to additional obstruction charges. Attorneys who handle these cases generally prefer that devices stay untouched and that all passwords, receipts, and accounts be gathered for a forensic search.
Final Thoughts...
Internet crime charges often sound airtight on paper. Once someone tests the technical record, the questions about who used a device, what they knew, and how police obtained the data frequently turn out to be the real case.
