Answer: your question is not complete. Please let me assume, this to be your complete question.
Oliver was a private contractor who helped companies become more efficient by creating electronic files to back up all physical documents.This practice was becoming particularly popular in that companies with electronic files of documents are able to more easily communicatethose files with employees or other contractors. However, during a job with a law firm, Oliver implanted a virus into the law firm’s computersthat allowed him to receive the social security numbers as well as financial information for all employees. This included credit card numbers.Oliver then sold this information online to whoever requested it, for a price. When one of the employees found out that this was going on, apolice investigation was requested. Eventually, this investigation led to Oliver’s arrest, and he was found guilty for computer crimes underthe Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, or CFAA, for purposefully gaining unauthorized use of a computer to collect financial or credit informationprotected under federal privacy law. Oliver was ordered to repay over 10 million dollars in damages.
But what if the facts of the case were different? Select each set of facts below that could change the result of the court’s decision and punishment:
1. The idea to hack into the law firm’s computers had originated with an officer who induced Oliver to commit the crime.
2. The court determined that Oliver had committed computer crimes knowingly instead of purposeful
THE ANSWER IS 1. The idea to hack into the law firms computer had originated with an officer who who induced Oliver to commit the crime.
Explanation:
The only fact that can change the decision of the court in this case is ENTRAPMENT( which means when a person is induced by a law enforcement agent or agent of the state law To commit a crime, which the person is not likely or unwilling to commit ). Because he was induced by an officer of the law, Oliver is likely to get an immunity from the court,
Talking about Oliver commiting the crime unknowingly or mistakenly, should not change the decision of the court, because they is no measure to ascertain if he actually committed the crime unknowingly, that is why it is stated, IGNORANCE IS NOT AN EXCUSE BY THE LAW.
