Forgery is no longer confined to paper documents. Contracts, invoices, certificates, correspondence, and other documents may be created, stored, and circulated electronically, and Egyptian law grants them legal and evidentiary value where the prescribed conditions are satisfied.
Conversely, the legislator has criminalized tampering with, fabricating, altering, or using an electronic signature or electronic document with knowledge of its falsification. The direct regulation of these acts appears in particular in Electronic Signature Regulation Law No. 15 of 2004 establishing the Information Technology Industry Development Agency, rather than in Articles 14 and 23 of Anti-Cyber and Information Technology Crimes Law No. 175 of 2018, as is sometimes stated.
What Is Meant by an Electronic Document?
The Electronic Signature Law defines an electronic document as a data message containing information that is created, incorporated, stored, sent, or received, wholly or partly, by electronic, digital, optical, or any similar means.
An electronic document does not have to take the form only of a PDF file or a digitally signed document; its forms may vary depending on the system through which it was created or stored. Ultimately, what matters is the nature of the data, the purpose for which the document was prepared as evidence, and the extent to which it satisfies the legal and technical conditions that confer evidentiary value upon it.
What Is the Difference Between an Electronic Document and an Electronic Signature?
The electronic document is the document or data message itself, while the electronic signature is what is affixed to that document in electronic form and allows – where the technical and legal requirements are satisfied – the identification of the signatory, distinction from others, and linkage to the document.
Accordingly, falsification may affect the content of the document itself, the electronic signature, or the medium used to create or store it, and each form has its own legal significance.
The Direct Criminal Provision under the Electronic Signature Law
Article 23 of Law No. 15 of 2004 criminalizes several acts directly connected with electronic signatures and electronic documents.
These acts include:
- Destroying or impairing an electronic signature, medium, or document.
- Forging an electronic signature, medium, or document by fabrication, alteration, distortion, or any other means.
- Using a defective or forged electronic signature, medium, or document with knowledge thereof.
- Unlawfully obtaining an electronic signature, medium, or document, or hacking, intercepting, or disabling the medium from performing its function.
Accordingly, the law does not penalize only the creation of a falsified electronic document; independent liability may arise from using it where the user’s knowledge of its defect or falsification is established.
What Forms Can Falsification of an Electronic Document Take?
The conduct may arise in various forms depending on the nature of the document and the means used, including:
- Fabricating an entire electronic document: And attributing it to a person or entity that did not issue it.
- Altering data in a genuine document: Such as changing the amount, date, party name, or material information after issuance.
- Distorting the content of an electronic certificate or credential: To show an incorrect qualification, capacity, or fact.
- Tampering with an electronic signature: Or using a signing method that does not belong to the offender or was not authorized by its owner.
- Creating a fictitious receipt or proof of payment: And then presenting it to prove payment that did not occur.
- Using a forged electronic document: In a commercial, administrative, or judicial transaction with knowledge that it is not genuine.
Does Every Modification to an Electronic File Constitute Forgery?
No. Mere modification of a file is not sufficient for criminal liability to arise.
The modification may be lawful, such as correcting a draft before approval or amending a document by an authorized person. Forgery, however, is associated with unlawfully altering the truth in the document in a manner that satisfies the elements required by the criminal provision.
Accordingly, it is necessary to determine who had authority to modify the document, when the modification was made, what data was changed, and whether the purpose was to present an incorrect fact or attribute the document to someone other than its true source.
Criminal Intent in the Falsification of Electronic Documents
Criminal liability is not based merely on the existence of a technical error or a difference between two versions of a document. Depending on the offence charged, it is necessary to establish the accused’s knowledge of the alteration or falsification and their intention to commit the prohibited act.
This is particularly clear in the offence of using a forged electronic document, where the law expressly requires knowledge of its defect or falsification.
Accordingly, a person who receives a forged document and uses it without knowing its true nature is not in the same legal position as the person who fabricated it or used it while knowing that it was falsified.
Penalty for Falsifying an Electronic Document
Article 23 of the Electronic Signature Law, without prejudice to any more severe penalty prescribed under the Penal Code or any other law, penalizes the acts specified therein with imprisonment and the fine prescribed by the provision, or either of these two penalties.
Accordingly, there is no correct general rule that every falsification of an electronic document is punishable by imprisonment from two to seven years or by aggravated imprisonment. The Electronic Signature Law may apply, while other more severe provisions may also apply alongside it or instead of it if the facts satisfy the elements of an independent offence.
Therefore, the type of document, the method of alteration, and the way in which it was used must be identified before determining the applicable penalty.
Is the Anti-Cyber and Information Technology Crimes Law the Legal Basis for the Offence?
Not always. Anti-Cyber and Information Technology Crimes Law No. 175 of 2018 criminalizes numerous acts relating to hacking, unauthorized access, attacks on data, systems, accounts, electronic cards, and other matters.
However, Articles 14 and 23 thereof do not constitute the general provisions governing forgery of electronic documents. Article 23, for example, concerns attacks on bank card data and electronic payment instruments and is not a general provision on document forgery.
Certain provisions of the Anti-Cyber and Information Technology Crimes Law may apply if the falsification process is accompanied by hacking an information system, unauthorized access, or unlawfully obtaining data. In that case, multiple legal characterizations may arise depending on the facts, but the elements of each offence must be established separately.
What If the Document Is Attributed to a Government Entity?
If the alteration concerns data or documents issued by a public entity, describing the document as «electronic» is not sufficient to determine the penalty.
The nature of the document, the capacity of the issuing entity, and whether the conduct also falls within forgery offences under the Penal Code or offences relating to attacks on government data and systems under the Anti-Cyber and Information Technology Crimes Law must be examined.
This may result in the application of a more severe provision, but aggravated imprisonment cannot properly be presumed merely because the name of a government entity appears on the document.
Evidentiary Value of Electronic Documents
The Electronic Signature Law grants evidentiary value to electronic writing, documents, and signatures where the conditions prescribed by the Law and its Executive Regulations are satisfied.
Among the important technical elements are that the signature be uniquely linked to the signatory, that the means of creating it be under the signatory’s control, and that any alteration or modification to the data of the electronic document or electronic signature be detectable.
These requirements do not serve evidentiary purposes alone; they are also fundamental elements in detecting tampering after the document has been created.
How Is Tampering with an Electronic Document Proven?
Proof usually depends on a combination of technical and documentary evidence, including:
- The original version of the document: And comparison with the disputed version.
- Electronic signature data: And the associated digital certificate and its status at the time of signing.
- Electronic Time Stamp: Where used to establish the time at which the document was created or signed.
- System logs: Showing who accessed the document and when the modification was made.
- File metadata: Which may assist in tracing creation and modification, subject to technical evaluation and without relying on it alone.
- Technical examination of devices and systems: Where conducted in accordance with legal procedures.
- Certification service provider confirmation: To verify the validity of the signature and certificate at the time of use.
Electronic Signature, Electronic Seal, and Electronic Time Stamp
The Information Technology Industry Development Agency «ITIDA» regulates electronic signature services in Egypt pursuant to Law No. 15 of 2004. The Executive Regulations were also amended in 2020 to add Electronic Seal and Electronic Time Stamp services to the framework.
When properly implemented, these tools assist in verifying the identity of the document’s source, the integrity of its content, the time of its creation or approval, and the detection of certain forms of subsequent alteration.
Key Legal and Technical Protection Methods
- Use an electronic signature issued through a licensed entity: And do not rely on an image of a signature or visible signature as a substitute for a legally recognized electronic signature.
- Verify the digital certificate: And ensure that it was valid and had not been revoked at the time the document was used.
- Use an Electronic Seal where necessary: Particularly for documents issued institutionally.
- Use an Electronic Time Stamp: Where the exact time of creating or signing the document has legal significance.
- Define modification permissions: So that no user can alter final documents without a clear record of the operation.
- Retain audit logs: To document creation, access, modification, and approval activities.
- Separate drafts from final versions: And establish a clear process for approving the final version.
- Protect signature creation data: And do not share the electronic signing method or code with other employees.
- Verify the source: Before relying on documents received by email or through external links.
- Retain original electronic versions: In a manner that enables verification of their integrity and comparison with any disputed copy.
What Should Be Done When a Forged Electronic Document Is Discovered?
The suspected file should not be modified or re-saved in a manner that alters its technical data. It is preferable to preserve the original version, the message or system through which it was received, and to document the date on which the incident was discovered.
Access logs, correspondence, digital certificates, and any technical data associated with the document should also be preserved, followed by a technical examination that maintains the integrity of the digital evidence before appropriate legal action is taken.
This step is particularly important because tampering with the evidence after its discovery – even unintentionally – may later make it difficult to determine the date or source of the modification.
Conclusion
Falsification of electronic documents under Egyptian law is not addressed solely through the Anti-Cyber and Information Technology Crimes Law. The direct provision concerning tampering with, forging, or unlawfully using an electronic document, signature, or medium is found in Electronic Signature Regulation Law No. 15 of 2004.
Other provisions may overlap where the incident involves hacking a system, another form of forgery, or an attack on government data. Accordingly, proper legal characterization begins by identifying the type of document, how it was altered, who carried out the alteration, whether it was used with knowledge of its falsification, and what systems or data were attacked in the process.
As for prevention, it depends to a large extent on the use of a valid electronic signature, management of access permissions, retention of modification logs, and use of verification tools such as the Electronic Seal and Electronic Time Stamp, enabling proof of the document’s source and detection of any unlawful alteration made to it.