Back Mauritius

    Status regarding Budapest Convention

Status regarding Budapest Convention

Status : Party Declarations and reservations : No reservations. See legal profile

Cybercrime policies/strategies

Mauritius has been a Party to the Budapest Convention since 2013 and was the first African country to accede to the Convention. Since 2014, it has benefitted from the support provided by the GLACY and the GLACY+ Projects. One of the main activities was to train and empower judges, magistrates and prosecutors with the aim to establish and maintain a pool of national judicial trainers, in partnership with the Institute for Judicial Legal Studies. Such capacities are expected to be leveraged to reach out to neighbouring countries and confirm Mauritius as a capacity building hub on cybercrime and electronic evidence in the South African region.

Mauritius has adopted Cybercrimestrategy for 2017 – 2019. However, Mauritius already had a Cybersecurity strategy that ran from 2014 to 2019. This Cybercrime strategy ran in parallel and dealt with the issues pertaining the investigation and prosecution of criminals and the role of the criminal justice system, while the cyber security strategy focused on prevention, mitigation and defence of critical national infrastructure assets.

From a legislative point of view, amendments have been brought to cybercrime legislative scenery through the introduction of Section 46 of the Information and Communication Technologies Act following recommendations provided by the GLACY+ project. With these amendments in 2016, Mauritius introduced the criminalization of cyber harassment.

Specialised institutions

The main specialized institutions in Mauritius are:

  • The Police force (IT Unit)
  • The Information and Communication Technologies Authority ( ICTA)
  • The Mauritian National Computer Security Incident Response Team (CERT-MU)
  • The National Computer Board
  • The Attorney General’s Office
  • The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions ( which also comprises of a cybercrime unit)
  • The IT Security Unit


Jurisprudence/case law

Cybercrime cases in Mauritius include:

  • Police v N. S. Mohamed 2011 Intermediate Court 120

Nadir aged 17 was arrested for having harassed, hacked and defaced a girl of 16’s profile on Social Networking websites. He was sentenced by the Intermediate Court to a fine of Rs. 190,000 on 17 counts under the ICT Act 2001 and Computer Misuse and Cybercrime Act 2003.

  • Police v S.Teeluck Date of Decision 28 March 2012

A graphic designer arrested for having committed Identity theft by creating a fake profile on Facebook by using victim’s identity and sending two threatening emails to the complainant who was a minor.

Judgment : fine of Rs. 150,000 on two counts under the ICT Act 2001.

  • Police v N. K. Teeluck

Accused was arrested for having used his iphone to access the database of a company engaged in betting activities, Supertote, and fraudulently withdrawn Rs.100,000 from the account of Supertote. Accused was prosecuted for Unauthorised Access to computer data and Electronic Fraud.

Judgment: Accused fined Rs.380,000.

  • Police v Choo Kui Chan & others (2012)

Accused parties were found in possession of 21 fake credit cards, bearing names of foreigners and used these cards to buy articles for an amount of Rs.3 Million.

Judgment: 20 months imprisonment.

  • Police vs Ramrichia 2013 Int 74

Accused, a government servant ,was arrested and prosecuted for obstruction of the operation of a computer system. He had sent long URLs on the Government Online Centre server and one of the URLs caused an obstruction of service. Accused pleaded not guilty.

Judgment: Fined Rs 25,000.

  • Police v M.I. Nuckcheddy 2013 Int 69

Mr. Nuckcheddy, a Government servant was arrested for having unlawfully downloaded files on the internet related to Al Qaeda videos and notes, and that too during office hours on a Government Computer system, after having unlawfully modified the IP Addresses on four occasions despite being access to internet being blocked . He confessed the cases during the enquiry but pleaded not guilty in Court.

Judgment: Accused found guilty and fined Rs. 90,000.

  • Ramsaran v State of Mauritius [2013] SCJ 466

Accused was convicted on 25 counts for effecting unauthorised withdrawal through ATM while he was only authorised to use the electronic card to pay for the telecom bills. On appeal the Supreme Court upheld the sentence and held:

“It is plain therefore, that an offence would lie against the appellant on each occasion that he has had access to the ATM to make a withdrawal without the consent of the complainant who was the only person entitled to give him consent to access the system in order to make a withdrawal of money from her account by making use of her card.

Judgment: fine of Rs 125,000.

  • Police v K. Bunwaree & S. Dowlut (2014)

Accused No.1 posted on facebook comments which caused prejudice to a religion, and such post caused a social disharmony. She confessed the case and was fined by the Intermediate Court to a fine of Rs.25,000 on one count.

Accused No. 2 did comment on 12 occasions to the post made by accused No. 1 and his comments too contained racial hatred, prejudicial to a religion. He confessed the case and was fined by the Intermediate Court to pay Rs. 25,000 per count. Total fine was Rs. 300,000.

Judgement: Accused No 1 fined Rs25,000 and Accused No 2 fined Rs 300,000.

  • Police v Khliupta, Polivanov, Ternavchuk (2014)

The accused, floreign nationals, were arrested for using fake credit cards to effect withdrawals. 31 fake credit cards on the names of foreign nationals were also secured. They all pleaded guilty to the charges.

Judgment: 1 year imprisonment and a total fine of Rs 1,400,000.

  • Police v Cubelac, Coulson & Barbu (2015)

The Accused, foreign nationals, were arrested for having used fake credit cards and withdrawn sum of Rs.400,000 from a local Bank, through ATMs around the island They were confronted to CCTV Footage and subsequently confessed the case. Fake credit cards and a skimmer were secured in the hotel where they were residing.

Judgment: Accused Cubelac was fined Rs. 375,000, Coulson Rs. 400,000 & Barbu Rs. 450,000.

  • Police v Petrasco and Galearschi (2015)

The accused, foreign nationals, were arrested with 8 magnetic cards. Their attempts to withdraw money from various ATMs were unsuccessful.

Judgment: Fined Rs 80,000 and imprisonment of 1 year.

  • Police v Zhang Guiping, Liu Ruichin, Hu Xia Mao, Liu Xiayong (2016)

The four accused, foreign nationals, used skimmer devices and spy camera to capture more than 1500 card details of bank clients. 15 plastic magnetic cards were also secured from them. Accused confessed to the charges and admitted their respective participation.

Judgment: Accused No. 1 fined Rs 40,000, Accused No.2 fined Rs120,000, Accused No.3 fined Rs 220,000 and Accused No 4 Rs 80,000.

  • Sujeeun V.S. v The State [2018] SCJ 165

The Accused, was prosecuted before the Intermediate Court with the offence of using an information and communication service for the purpose of causing inconvenience to a person, in breach of sections 46(h)(ii) and 47 of the Information and Communication Technologies Act (ICTA). The Accused pleaded not guilty and was represented by Counsel. He was convicted and sentenced to be conditionally discharged upon entering into recognizance in his own name in the sum of Rs 50,000 and furnishing a security of Rs 30,000 within 21 days and to be of good behaviour for a period of two years failing which to undergo six months imprisonment. He appealed against his conviction on 14 grounds which were all unsuccessful.

Tools on Cybercrime & Electronic Evidence Empowering You!

These profiles do not necessarily reflect official positions of the States covered or of the Council of Europe. 


  Are you aware of the latest legislative or policy developments on cybercrime and electronic evidence?

  Share this information with us helping to keep this platform up to date.

Useful links