After Syrian activist and content creator Hassan Akkad said he had received a summons to the Anti-Cybercrime Branch at the Syrian Ministry of Interior for Sunday, 7 June, and an invitation from the Syrian Ministry of Information to review its legal affairs office on Monday, 8 June , journalist Moussa al-Omar revealed that he had filed the legal complaint against Akkad.

Akkad, the founder of the “Give us the money you owe” campaign, announced Friday that he had received a call from Criminal Security, the Criminal Investigation Department, asking him to visit the Anti-Cybercrime Branch on Sunday morning. He also said he had received death threats through social media platforms.

On his personal Instagram page, Akkad said he had received a message from the legal affairs office at the Syrian Ministry of Information asking him to temporarily stop publishing until a meeting is held with him at the ministry building in Damascus.

He confirmed that he respects the law and will temporarily stop publishing, noting that he had been preparing to release a new investigation but decided to postpone it until the circumstances of the case become clear.

Hassan Akkad is known as a Syrian content creator and activist on social media platforms. He has recently gained prominence through the “Give us the money you owe” campaign, which aims to follow up on financial promises and pledges announced to support affected people and service projects in Syria.

The campaign has spread widely and sparked debate and controversy over mechanisms for collecting donations and disclosing the implementation of financial pledges.

Al-Omar: The Law Will Take Its Course in Akkad’s Case

In a video posted on his personal Facebook page, journalist Moussa al-Omar explained that the invitation Hassan Akkad received to appear at the Syrian Ministry of Information came after a complaint he filed against him through legal channels.

Al-Omar said that what Akkad had said about him included, according to his description, insults and defamation that caused him great harm. He stressed that the case would be handled according to the law, and that the Ministry of Information would ask Akkad about the reason for what he said about him, adding that Akkad had severely harmed him through behavior such as insults.

Journalist al-Omar said he had supported Akkad since the start of his campaign and that the two had previously spoken privately. But he added that there was injustice in Akkad’s campaign, asking who gave him the right to defame an employee at border crossings who had pledged to donate $200, saying Akkad exposed him and demanded that he pay what he had pledged.

The Syrian journalist said Akkad accused him of not handing Damascus Governorate the $10,000 he had pledged, although on the second day after the fundraising event he had handed the governorate $30,000.

Al-Omar listed several donations he said he had carried out:

• $40,000 in the Latakia donation campaign.
• $25,000 in the Manbij (Aleppo, northern Syria) donation campaign.
• $10,000 in the “Our Countryside Deserves It” campaign.
• $150,000 in Taftanaz (Idlib, northwestern Syria).

But Akkad, according to journalist al-Omar, reached an advanced stage of “harm, distortion, and electronic flies, including the Hijri X platform, the Lebanese newspaper al-Akhbar, and Iran’s al-Alam channel,” with reports claiming that the donation campaigns were “all lies,” according to al-Omar. He added, “I tell you that the law will take its course, and I have nothing to do with your problems with others,” noting that Akkad is facing complaints from others.

Information Ministry: We Are Trying to Reach a Solution Between Akkad and Al-Omar

Omar Haj Ahmad, director of press affairs at the Syrian Ministry of Information, posted a clarification on his Facebook page about the case involving content creator Hassan Akkad.

Haj Ahmad said Moussa al-Omar had filed a complaint against Hassan Akkad with the Cybercrime Unit at the Ministry of Interior, including accusations related to defamation and insult.

He said that the Ministry of Information, based on the approach it follows in handling this type of case, prioritizes:

• Dialogue, understanding, and clarification between the parties.
• Efforts to reach friendly or disciplinary solutions and procedures before resorting to the judicial path.

Accordingly, Hassan Akkad was invited to visit the Ministry of Information, while Moussa al-Omar was contacted and asked to withdraw the complaint. The ministry hopes to reach a solution that satisfies both parties.

Haj Ahmad explained that if the complaint is not withdrawn, the Cybercrime Unit at the Ministry of Interior will follow the necessary legal procedures in accordance with the applicable process.

The Ministry of Information confirms, according to Haj Ahmad, that the invitation for Hassan Akkad to visit the ministry came solely against the backdrop of the complaint filed by Moussa al-Omar, and is not linked to any other content Akkad published on social media.

By this, the ministry and Moussa al-Omar are saying that the existing case against Hassan Akkad has no connection to his second campaign against businessman Mohammad Hamsho, who is accused of trading in iron from the rubble of Syrian cities through tenders he won during the era of the Assad regime.

What Is the Penalty for Electronic Defamation, Insult, or Contempt

Article 24 of Cybercrime Law No. 20 of 2022, which has been in force since the era of the Assad regime amid demands for its amendment, states under the title “electronic defamation”:

• Anyone who uses information technology to privately insult a person through the network is punishable by a fine of between 200,000 and 300,000 Syrian pounds, about $14 to $21.
• Anyone who uses information technology to publicly insult a person on the network is punishable by imprisonment from one month to three months and a fine of between 300,000 and 500,000 Syrian pounds, about $21 to $35. The penalty is increased to imprisonment from three months to one year and a fine of between 500,000 and 1,000,000 Syrian pounds, about $35 to $71, if the defamation is committed against a person assigned to public work while performing their work or because of it.

According to Article 25, under the title “electronic insult or contempt,” of the same law:

• Anyone who uses information technology to commit insult or contempt against a person privately through the network is punishable by a fine of between 100,000 and 200,000 Syrian pounds, about $7 to $14.
• Anyone who uses information technology to commit insult or contempt against a person publicly on the network is punishable by imprisonment from 10 days to two months and a fine of between 200,000 and 300,000 Syrian pounds, about $14 to $21. The penalty is increased to imprisonment from two months to six months and a fine of between 300,000 and 500,000 Syrian pounds, about $21 to $35, if the insult or contempt is committed against a person assigned to public work while performing their work or because of it.

What Is the Law on Detention by Police, Criminal Security, or the Judiciary

Lawsuits related to cybercrimes are currently stirring controversy in Syria, especially with defendants being detained during the custody period when they report to Criminal Security.

According to Criminal Procedure Code No. 112 of 1950 and its amendments, particularly those included in Legislative Decree No. 55 of 2011, the period of detention by the judicial police, meaning the police and security services, is called the “custody period.” It is the period that precedes presentation before the judiciary, and there are two cases:

• In ordinary crimes, a detainee may be held for 24 hours if they confess to the crime attributed to them, or if their commission of it is proven, before being presented to the judiciary. However, the public prosecutor may extend detention based on the findings of the investigation, provided the total period does not exceed seven days.
• In crimes specified by Decree 55, such as some aggravated theft crimes, the public prosecutor may extend the judicial police’s custody of the detainee for a period not exceeding 60 days.

After a detainee is referred to the judiciary, the investigating judge decides either to release them or order pretrial detention. The periods differ according to the classification of the offense:

• The period of pretrial detention in misdemeanors is seven days, renewable by a reasoned decision, provided it does not exceed 60 days unless a referral is made or a new judicial decision is issued justifying continued detention.
• The period of detention in felonies is 15 days, renewable by a reasoned decision, provided the detention period does not exceed six months.

If the accused is referred to the criminal court under an indictment decision, there is no specific time limit for the end of the trial, and detention continues during it unless the court decides to release the detainee. The detainee retains the right to submit release requests at various stages of the trial, with the decision left to the court’s discretion.

Any detention that exceeds these periods by non-judicial authorities, such as police or Criminal Security, and in crimes not specified, is considered unlawful deprivation of liberty. It falls under the category of “arbitrary detention” and could develop into “enforced disappearance.”