Death Threats Emailed to Belgrade Prosecutors, ID Ordered

The special cybercrime unit of the High Prosecutor’s Office (VJT) in Belgrade has ordered police to urgently identify the person who sent threatening messages by email. According to the prosecution, the messages reached the institution’s official email address.

The content of the messages concerns threats aimed at the country’s president, the chief public prosecutor and certain media owners. The prosecution has asked police to establish the sender’s identity as quickly as possible and to bring the case forward.

What exactly does the prosecution say?

According to the statement, the threatening messages were sent with the aim of intimidating public officials and individuals from the media sphere. The prosecution stresses that the messages arrived at an address used for official correspondence, not at anyone’s private accounts.

The special cybercrime unit handles criminal offences committed using computers and computer networks. In such cases, identifying the sender usually begins with an analysis of the electronic trail, meaning the data about the account and the connection from which the message was sent.

The prosecution also notes the timing. According to it, the messages arrived after an earlier statement that concerned a suspected staged use of a so-called sound cannon. That earlier topic drew the attention of both the media and part of the public, but the threats sent by email are a separate event and are being treated as a stand-alone case.

The circumstances disclosed so far:

• the messages arrived at the official email address of the VJT in Belgrade
• the threats were aimed at the president, the chief prosecutor and certain media owners
• urgent identification and prosecution of the sender were ordered
• the case is being handled by the special cybercrime unit

Sending threatening messages by email may qualify as the criminal offence of endangering safety. The precise legal classification will depend on the content of the messages and the results of the investigation, and that is decided by the competent prosecution.

How is such an investigation run?

Identifying a sender in cybercrime cases relies on digital traces. Investigators collect data about the address from which the message was sent, the time it was sent and the technical features of the account. On that basis they look for a link to a specific person.

The procedure is at an early stage. Until it is established who sent the messages, there can be no talk of a suspect or of anyone’s guilt. Any person eventually identified will be presumed innocent until guilt is proven by a final court decision.

The institution’s reaction shows that threats delivered through a state communication channel are not treated as an incident of no weight. A threat sent to the prosecution’s official address strikes at the work of the institution itself, hence the order for urgent action.

How the investigation proceeds will depend on how quickly police can link the electronic trail to a specific person. The prosecution has not disclosed further details about the content of the messages, which is standard while the sender’s identity remains unknown.

Do you think institutions take threats sent over the internet and by email seriously enough?