El Iter Criminis Digital: Reconfiguración Dogmática y Desafíos Probatorios en el Derecho Penal Peruano
The Digital Iter Criminis: Dogmatic Reconfiguration and Evidentiary Challenges in Peruvian Criminal Law
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29394/Scientific.issn.2542-2987.2026.11.e3.5.75-94Palabras clave:
iter criminis, ciberdelincuencia peruana, evidencia digital, cadena de custodia, fraude informáticoResumen
El artículo examina cómo la transformación digital ha reconfigurado la comprensión tradicional del iter criminis en el derecho penal peruano, evidenciando que las categorías clásicas (fase interna, actos preparatorios, inicio de ejecución y consumación) resultan insuficientes frente a la rapidez, automatización y deslocalización propias del entorno informático. El estudio se desarrolló desde un enfoque cualitativo, mediante un diseño no experimental, transversal y documental, aplicando análisis de contenido a fuentes normativas y doctrinales, complementado con la sistematización analógica de siete resoluciones de la Corte Suprema del Perú sobre las categorías generales del iter criminis, ante la ausencia verificada de jurisprudencia suprema específica sobre ciberdelitos, con el objetivo de reconstruir el iter criminis en los delitos informáticos de la Ley N.º 30096. Se analizó la incidencia de la norma en la redefinición del riesgo penalmente relevante y en el adelantamiento de punibilidad de actos preparatorios digitales, como la posesión de malware. Los resultados evidenciaron que la jurisprudencia suprema disponible sobre las categorías del iter criminis se concentra mayoritariamente en aspectos probatorios y procesales, revelando desafíos derivados de la volatilidad de la evidencia digital, la preservación de metadatos, la cadena de custodia digital y la necesidad de pericias informáticas especializadas. El estudio sostiene que la ciberdelincuencia, por su naturaleza transnacional, exige fortalecer la cooperación internacional y modernizar las capacidades institucionales del sistema de justicia. Finalmente, se concluye que resulta necesaria una reinterpretación funcional del iter criminis digital que permita una persecución penal eficaz sin afectar los límites constitucionales del derecho penal de acto.
Descargas
Citas
Aksamitowska, K. (2021). Digital evidence in domestic core international crimes prosecutions: Lessons learned from Germany, Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 19(1), 189–211. https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqab035
Al-Faraji, N. M. L. (2025). The legal framework of cybercrime and the obstacles to proving it. International Journal of Criminal, Common and Statutory Law, 5(1), 15–21. https://doi.org/10.22271/27899497.2025.v5.i1a.113
Alhawawsheh, A., Alfalahi, Q., Soltan, K., Taher, A., & Dhaheri, L. (2025). Digital evidence as a means of proof in criminal proceedings in the UAE. Access to Justice in Eastern Europe, 8(3), 521–540. https://doi.org/10.33327/AJEE-18-8.3-a000111
Alluqmani, K., Karrar, A. E., Alhaidari, M., Alharbi, R., & Alharbi, S. (2025). Assessing the efficacy of security awareness training in mitigating phishing attacks: A review. International Journal of Advanced Trends in Computer Science and Engineering, 14(3), 177–184. https://doi.org/10.30534/ijatcse/2025/081432025
Bein, D. (1993). Preparatory offences. Israel Law Review, 27(1-2), 185–212. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0021223700016903
Bigos, O. (2005). Jurisdiction over cross-border wrongs on the Internet. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 54(3), 585–620. https://doi.org/10.1093/iclq/lei019
Caputo, D. D., Pfleeger, S. L., Freeman, J. D., & Johnson, M. E. (2014). Going spear phishing: Exploring embedded training and awareness. IEEE Security & Privacy, 12(1), 28–38. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSP.2013.106
Casino, F., Pina, C., López-Aguilar, P., Batista, E., Solanas, A., & Patsakis, C. (2022). SoK: Cross-border criminal investigations and digital evidence. Journal of Cybersecurity, 8(1), tyac014. https://doi.org/10.1093/cybsec/tyac014
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Cross, C., & Blackshaw, D. (2015). Improving the police response to online fraud. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 9(2), 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1093/police/pau044
Das, A., Baki, S., El Aassal, A., Verma, R. M., & Dunbar, A. (2020). SoK: A comprehensive reexamination of phishing research from the security perspective. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 22(1), 671–708. https://doi.org/10.1109/COMST.2019.2957750
Dragojlović, J. (2023). Jurisdiction for criminal offenses of cybercrime: International and national standards. Pravo - teorija i praksa, 40(Suppl.), 63–83. https://doi.org/10.5937/ptp2300063D
Garfinkel, S. L. (2009). Providing cryptographic security and evidentiary chain-of-custody with the Advanced Forensic Format, Library, and Tools. International Journal of Digital Crime and Forensics, 1(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.4018/JDCF.2009010101
Greene, K., Steves, M., & Theofanos, M. (2018). No phishing beyond this point. Computer, 51(6), 86–89. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2018.2701632
Hernández-Sampieri, R., & Mendoza, C. P. (2018). Metodología de la investigación: Las rutas cuantitativa, cualitativa y mixta. McGraw-Hill Interamericana Editores.
Hutchings, A., Clayton, R., & Anderson, R. (2016). Taking down websites to prevent crime. 2016 APWG Symposium on Electronic Crime Research (eCrime), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1109/ECRIME.2016.7487947
Ingemarsson, J., Birath, M., & Kävrestad, J. (2025). Factors influencing Swedish citizens' willingness to provide their mobile phones to forensic examination. International Journal of Information Security, 24(1), 42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10207-024-00955-4
Irawan, B., Mulyanti, D., Budiaman, H., Rahman, Y. M., & Taufiqurrohman, A. (2025). Perspective of state sovereignty in law enforcement related to cyberlaw jurisdiction. Law Reform, 21(1), 120–134. https://doi.org/10.14710/lr.v21i1.68760
Iuga, C., Nurse, J. R. C., & Erola, A. (2016). Baiting the hook: Factors impacting susceptibility to phishing attacks. Human-Centric Computing and Information Sciences, 6(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13673-016-0065-2
Jagatic, T. N., Johnson, N. A., Jakobsson, M., & Menczer, F. (2007). Social phishing. Communications of the ACM, 50(10), 94–100. https://doi.org/10.1145/1290958.1290968
Kumaraguru, P., Rhee, Y., Sheng, S., Hasan, S., Acquisti, A., Cranor, L. F., & Hong, J. (2007). Getting users to pay attention to anti-phishing education: Evaluation of retention and transfer. Proceedings of the 2nd Annual eCrime Researchers Summit, 70–81. https://doi.org/10.1145/1299015.1299022
Kumaraguru, P., Sheng, S., Acquisti, A., Cranor, L. F., & Hong, J. (2010). Teaching Johnny not to fall for phish. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology, 10(2), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1145/1754393.1754396
Leukfeldt, E. R., Lavorgna, A., & Kleemans, E. R. (2017). Organised cybercrime or cybercrime that is organised? An assessment of the conceptualisation of financial cybercrime as organised crime. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 23(3), 287–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-016-9332-z
Lewulis, P. (2022). Collecting digital evidence from online sources: Deficiencies in current Polish criminal law. Criminal Law Forum, 33(1), 39–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10609-021-09430-4
Logos, K., Brewer, R., Langos, C., & Westlake, B. (2023). Establishing a framework for the ethical and legal use of web scrapers by cybercrime and cybersecurity researchers: Learnings from a systematic review of Australian research. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 31(3), 186–212. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eaad023
Novak, M. (2022). Digital evidence in appeals of criminal cases before the U.S. courts of appeal: A review of decisions and examination of the legal landscape from 2016-2020. Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law, 17(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.15394/jdfsl.2022.1734
Ofori, A. Y., & Akoto, D. (2020). Digital forensics investigation jurisprudence: Issues of admissibility of digital evidence. Journal of Forensic, Legal & Investigative Sciences, 6(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.24966/FLIS-733X/100045
Sheng, S., Holbrook, M., Kumaraguru, P., Cranor, L. F., & Downs, J. S. (2010). Who falls for phish?. A demographic analysis of phishing susceptibility and effectiveness of interventions. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '10), 373–382. https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753383
Sousa-Silva, R. (2024). We attempted to deliver your package: Forensic translation in the fight against cross-border cybercrime. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique, 37(4), 1323–1349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-023-10102-2
Sutter, T., Bozkir, A. S., Gehring, B., & Berlich, P. (2022). Avoiding the hook: Influential factors of phishing awareness training on click-rates and a data-driven approach to predict email difficulty perception. IEEE Access, 10, 100540–100565. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3207272
Wang, X. (2025). Global (re-)framing of cybercrime: An emerging common interest in flux of competing normative powers?. Leiden Journal of International Law, 38(2), 235–261. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156524000402
Zhou, Y., Tiwari, M., Bernot, A., & Lin, K. (2024). Metacrime and cybercrime: Exploring the convergence and divergence in digital criminality. Asian Journal of Criminology, 19(3), 419–439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11417-024-09436-y
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2026 INDTEC, C.A.
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0.
El contenido de las revistas de este sitio, están bajo una Licencia de Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0 Internacional.
