Section 19(3) of the Cybercrime Code Act 2016 reaches the people who profit from grooming without doing it themselves.
Section 19(3)
A person who knowingly receives any financial or other reward, favour, benefit, compensation, or any other gain from the commission of an offence under this section, is guilty of a crime.
Penalty: (a) for a natural person, a fine not exceeding K100,000 or imprisonment not exceeding 25 years, or both; and (b) for a body corporate, a fine not exceeding K1,000,000.
Section 19(3) carries the same 25 years and K100,000 as section 19(1) — and a higher corporate fine: K1,000,000 against section 19(1)’s K500,000, matching the aggravated section 19(2).
The person who receives the money is treated as seriously as the person who did the grooming.
“Any financial or other reward, favour, benefit, compensation, or any other gain”
The drafting leaves almost nothing out:
Financial reward — money, in any form.
Other reward — goods, services, property.
Favour — non-material advantage: an introduction, a recommendation, a service returned.
Benefit — anything advantageous.
Compensation — payment framed as recompense.
Any other gain — the residual limb, which sweeps up anything the preceding words miss.
No threshold amount is specified, and the benefit need not be money. A person who receives access to material, a share of subscription revenue, hosting fees, or simply a favour in return, is within the section.
The mental element: “knowingly”
Most offences open with “intentionally and without lawful excuse or justification, or in excess of a lawful excuse”. Section 19(3) uses “knowingly receives” instead.
What must be known is that the benefit comes from the commission of an offence under this section — that is, from grooming under section 19(1) or (2).
So a person who receives a payment without knowing its source is outside the offence. But knowledge may be proved by inference from the circumstances, and a person who deliberately avoids asking obvious questions is unlikely to be assisted by that.
Note that the word “knowingly” is used elsewhere in the Act for the same purpose — in section 14(2), section 21(3), sections 28 to 30 and section 44(1)(c). See the article on mental elements.
Who the section is aimed at
| Role | Why they are caught |
|---|---|
| Intermediaries and arrangers | Take a fee for introducing an offender to a child, or for arranging contact |
| Operators of paid services | Receive subscription or access revenue from material or contact produced by grooming |
| Facilitators within a family or community | Receive money, goods or favours in exchange for allowing or enabling access to a child |
| Payment and transfer intermediaries | Receive commission on transfers they know derive from a section 19 offence |
| Hosting and platform operators | Receive fees for hosting knowing the activity — and note the parallel exposure under section 44 |
Online child exploitation is frequently commercial, and the money moves through people who never communicate with a child. Without section 19(3) they would have to be prosecuted as parties to the grooming, which requires proof of participation in that offence.
Section 19(3) makes receiving the benefit, with knowledge of its source, an offence in its own right. The prosecution must prove the underlying section 19 offence was committed and that the accused knowingly received a gain from it — not that the accused took part in it.
This follows the pattern seen elsewhere in the Act of criminalising the surrounding conduct: section 16 for tools, section 31 for advertising, and sections 12(2) and 13(2) for conspiracy and attempt.
The corporate dimension
Section 2 defines “body corporate” as a company whether incorporated or unincorporated, including government or public bodies, as well as terrorist groups or organisations.
A company that knowingly receives revenue derived from grooming — hosting fees, advertising revenue, subscription income — is within section 19(3).
For ICT service providers, the position is compounded by section 44, which independently criminalises initiating or aiding in facilitating an action resulting in an offence under the Act, concealing, preventing or frustrating an investigation, failing to comply with a court order to terminate or prevent a continuing offence, and negligently allowing an employee to do any of those things — each carrying 25 years or K100,000 for an individual and K1,000,000 for a company.
See corporate fines and corporate liability.
Section 19(3) is not in Schedule 2 and cannot be dealt with summarily. Where the offender is a child between 10 and 18, section 5(3) applies the Juvenile Justice Act 2014.
Sources
- Cybercrime Code Act 2016 — ss 2, 5, 12, 13, 14, 16, 19, 21, 28–31, 44, 48; Schedule 2
- Juvenile Justice Act 2014
Before relying on anything here, read the current text of the Cybercrime Code Act 2016 and check for later amendments. If a decision matters to you, get advice — start with the Office of the Public Solicitor, or find a firm in the law firms directory.