Can police use a child's fake profile to catch online offenders?

An ruling of 7 October 2025 by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) confirms that police may, under strict conditions, use a fictitious profile of a minor in an online chat room to track down perpetrators of sexual abuse. This method is not automatically considered unlawful police solicitation, provided the undercover agent adopts a passive attitude.

The anonymous nature of the Internet poses great challenges to the courts, especially in the fight against online sex offenses such as ''grooming'. Perpetrators often imagine themselves untouchable. A ruling in the case Helme t. Estonia now creates more clarity about the limits of proactive police investigation in the digital world.

The facts: an undercover operation in an online chat room

The case revolved around a man who was convicted of the attempted sexual recruitment of a minor. The conviction came after he engaged in explicit sexual conversations with a user named "Marleen12" via private messages in a public chat room called "hall of love." What the man did not know was that behind this profile was an undercover policewoman posing as a 12-year-old girl.

The police operation had been initiated following general information that sexual conversations with minors were taking place on that particular website. There was no concrete suspicion against the man in question beforehand. He therefore argued that he had been ambushed (police provocation) and that his right to a fair trial, as guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), had been violated. According to him, the mere fact that the police had created an enticing fake profile already constituted entrapment.

The european court's decision

The European Court of Human Rights ruled unanimously that there was no violation of the right to a fair trial. The Court noted that the use of undercover techniques, especially in the context of online crimes, can be a necessary investigative tool.

The crucial elements in the Court's reasoning were:

1. The passive attitude of the agent: The agent had not initiated the conversations. The transcripts showed that each time the convicted man sought the contact himself and gave the conversations sexual content. The agent remained "essentially passive" and responded mainly briefly to his initiatives.
2. No pressure or prompting: At no time was the man pressured or induced to commit the offenses. He was free to end the conversation at any time.
3. Justified operation: Although there was no prior suspicion against the man personally, there was objective suspicion regarding a "defined and limited virtual space": the specific chat room. The police had good reason to launch an investigation at that location, given the information about abuse.

Legal analysis and interpretation

This ruling is significant because it applies and refines the traditional criteria for police entrapment for the digital context. The classic rule states that police officers should not act as agent provocateur: they may not induce a person to commit a crime that he or she would not otherwise have committed just for the sake of obtaining a conviction.

However, the Court recognizes that the anonymity and nature of online crimes, such as grooming, require a different approach. The requirement of an "objective suspicion" is broadened here: a suspicion against a specific location (a website or chat room) may suffice to justify an operation, without a concrete perpetrator already in sight. This is a significant evolution, prompted by the state's positive obligation to effectively protect vulnerable minors from abuse, including online.

The crux of the matter, however, remains the conduct of the undercover agent. The operation is legitimate as long as the police are limited to creating an opportunity to commit a crime and then passively observing who takes advantage of that opportunity. Once the agent begins to actively incite, persuade or pressure, the line with unauthorized entrapment is crossed.

What this specifically means

• For the police and the prosecutor's office: This ruling provides a clearer framework for conducting proactive online investigations. However, an operation must always be authorized by a competent magistrate and undercover agents must be given strict instructions about their passive role. It is not a safe haven for arbitrary "fishing expeditions.
• For defendants in similar cases: The defense of entrapment becomes considerably weaker if it can be shown that the accused himself initiated the contact and the criminal acts. The claim "the police enticed me" does not hold up if the facts show that one himself was the active and directing party.
• For Internet users: Be aware that not everyone online is who he or she claims to be. This ruling confirms that law enforcement officers can also go into the digital world to detect crimes.

FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions)

Is any police use of a fake profile now allowed?
No. The use must be justified by reasonable suspicion (against a specific online environment, if necessary), approved by the prosecutor or investigating judge, and the agent must be passive. Active inducement remains prohibited.

What exactly is the difference between a legitimate undercover operation and prohibited entrapment?
The limit lies with who takes the initiative. In a legitimate operation, the police create an opportunity and wait. In entrapment, the police exert such influence that someone commits a crime they would not otherwise have committed. The passivity of the officer is the key criterion here.

Does this ruling apply to all types of crimes?
In this ruling, the Court strongly emphasized the context of crimes against vulnerable minors. While the principles are general, it is questionable whether the case law would be equally flexible for other, less serious crimes without such a vulnerable victim.

Conclusion

The ruling Helme t. Estonia shows that the law is adapting to the realities of digital society. The ECtHR gives investigative agencies the necessary space to effectively tackle online crime, but also clearly delineates that space. The passive role of the undercover agent remains the ultimate safeguard against abuse and arbitrariness.