**3.2 Elements of juvenile crimes with malware apps**

Studies have made known that juvenile crimes committed with malware apps can involve many elements [10, 20]. The term elements of juvenile crime describe various circumstances that surround or underlie the crime that are defined and recognized by the statutes or laws of a given state (or nation) or international court of justice. In other words, the statutes of each sovereign state usually set what should be the elements and the limit of juvenile crimes. However, studies have shown that juvenile crimes with malware apps are novel areas that have not been completely proved in pragmatic manners over the years.

**Figure 1** illustrates the generic (standard) elements of juvenile crimes with maware apps [17, 21]. According to Britannica [22], consideration of the generic elements of juvenile crime should revolve round the conduct of the child (or criminal act), the mental state of the mind of the accused child at the time of the conduct (criminal intent), concurrence (agreement/disagreement to perform the 'act') and the causation between the conduct of the child (act) and the effect of the 'act' (criminal liability) either there is victim (s) or there is no victim involved (in case of victimless crime) [23].

Nonetheless, some of the social and legal components of the above elements of juvenile crimes remain debatable over the years [17]. The premise of this chapter is that investigators, prosecutors and judges must not expend huge resources to clearly unravel juvenile crimes committed with malware especially if the crimes are not properly split into their elements. The above standard elements are also common to

**Figure 1.** *Generic elements of juvenile crimes with malware apps.*

most crimes. They are usually defined in criminal statutory books but prosecutors must be able to prove them beyond reasonable doubt in order to prosecute suspects of juvenile crimes. The above elements of juvenile crimes committed with malware apps may connote omission (neglect) by a child (voluntary act), commission (command0 (state of mind) of a child at the point of committing the act. A child can commit an act with malware apps voluntarily (intentionally) or involuntarily (unintentionally). For example, a child that intentionally uses malware apps to commit any of the above categories of crimes or related crime(s) is an example of voluntary intentional crime. Conversely, a child that unintentionally uses malware apps to commit any of the above categories of crimes or related crimes is an indication of involuntary or unintentional crime.

The minimum age that a child can be criminally held responsible for a crime usually varies but the internationally recognized range is between 6 and 18 years [16]. Furthermore, in a society where comprehensive justice systems exist for minor offenders (or may not exist), the prosecutor must be able to establish the legality of the fact that the child is criminally liable to be held responsible for the act especially if the allegation involves severe damage that is attributed to a child that is still below the above age range. That is, a prosecutor must be able to proof that it was through the direct participation of the child with malware apps that have done the harm or expected to have done harm to the victims(s). Detectives must be able to equally talk emphatically (while necessary) about the alleged malware apps must have been the root cause(s) of the allegation(s), or the investigative reports have traced or attributed the alleged malware apps to the accused child without any reasonable doubt.

Investigators may hold some children criminally liable (responsible) for certain juvenile crimes committed with malware apps for different reasons. Investigators may hold two or more children criminally liable for certain juvenile crimes in the above context if there are sufficient evidence, feelings and likelihood of accomplice in the allegation. Shared or joint criminal liability is a current legal issue in juvenile crimes with malware apps. This concept becomes relevant whenever a child deliberately (inadvertently) fails to act or prevent the act when in actual fact it is the legal duty of the child to act and given the fact that the child is capable of mitigating the crime at that particular instance. Ignorance is not acceptable in criminal laws. The question is whether the child is legally educated enough to ascertain and remove
