Criminal Jurisdiction and the Metaverse

This article develops arguments on the issues surrounding the conception, commission, and perpetration of criminal offenses in the metaverse and on the related critical issues regarding jurisdiction and the attribution of competence. The paper also reflects on the difference between crimes committed in the metaverse and crimes committed in the metaverse but consummated on Earth. The topic aims to propose solutions, using the points of contact between the physical and the metaverse. The aim of this article is to highlight how actions in the metaverse can have criminal relevance, and above all the problem of attribution of jurisdiction (and all the practical implications in terms of criminal procedure). In particular, the paper aims to address the problems related to the identification of the subject who committed the crime in the metaverse (avatar or the subject who pilots it?!), the open questions regarding the actions committed in the metaverse and the classical principles of criminal law (the principle of legality and its corollaries) called into question by the actions in the metaverse; moreover, this work aims to highlight the regulatory gaps for the resolution of possible conflicts between avatars in the metaverse, but, above all, the criminal procedural gaps as the issues of criminal jurisdiction and the attribution of competence are discussed in the literature. The method used for the study is that of comparison with other legal systems to have a comprehensive picture of how the States are approaching the use of the metaverse and the criminal consequences. The result of this contribution is represented by the distinction between the crimes conceived, committed and consumed entirely in the metaverse and the crimes conceived and committed in the metaverse but consumed on Earth. This distinction – in terms of substantive criminal law – has concrete implications on criminal jurisdiction and on the attribution of jurisdiction. The analysis of various cases has led this author to decline this distinction, which is not just an exercise in legal category since – based on the general framework – the perspective of concrete analysis changes..