blackmail extortion norway
Is saying you&#39;ll doing something illegal towards someone always a threat?
<p>Followup to this question: <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/80172/legality-of-counter-blackmailing-with-calling-reporting-to-the-police">Legality of &quot;counter-blackmailing&quot; with calling/reporting to the police</a></p>
<p>In it, an answerer provided two criteria for when blackmail is legal in the England and Wales jurisdiction:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>(1)A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces; and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief—</p>
<p>(a)that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and</p>
<p>(b)that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I am now applying this to the more general act of extortion. I find <em>proper means</em> to be a bit vague here. Take the following scenario;</p>
<p>In my country (Norway), it is illegal to cut power to someone who isn't paying their electrical bills if a resident is a minor.</p>
<p>In a minor-free residence, a company making the threat &quot;if you don't pay up, we will cut your power&quot;, satisfies (a) and (b). However, if they make the same threat to a residence that houses a minor, (a) is still satisfied. As for (b), I am not quite sure; is threatening to do something illegal an &quot;improper&quot; way of inforcing the demand? It wouldn't surprise me, but I interpreted &quot;proper&quot; more to mean, &quot;the thing you're threatening to do is the best way of maximizing the likelihood that you get what you want&quot;. If this interpretation is correct, then it would be improper for the company to orally deliver the threat to a resident that is blind, deaf and at the moment of deliverance, without other people to relay the message. It is improper, because the use of the menaces weren't the best way; heck, not a way at all; to inforce the demand.</p>
<p>However, maybe legality is a criterium for the use of menaces to be proper? A threat requires there to be the promise of a harm or loss to a person or their property. However, when the person fail to pay the electrical bills, the electricity running to their house is no longer their property. So, when the company says they'll cut the power to this minor-housing residence, they aren't threatening them (since they don't own the electricity anymore), but they are saying that they'll do something illegal. Does the fact that the act of which they're saying they'll do is illegal, make their speech constitute threats, and thus their act constitute extortion?</p>

<p>In Washington state, the term &quot;threat&quot; is <a href="https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.04.110" rel="nofollow noreferrer">defined</a> as follows:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>&quot;Threat&quot; means to communicate, directly or indirectly the intent: (a)
To cause bodily injury in the future to the person threatened or to
any other person; or (b) To cause physical damage to the property of a
person other than the actor; or (c) To subject the person threatened
or any other person to physical confinement or restraint; or (d) To
accuse any person of a crime or cause criminal charges to be
instituted against any person; or (e) To expose a secret or publicize
an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject any person
to hatred, contempt, or ridicule; or (f) To reveal any information
sought to be concealed by the person threatened; or (g) To testify or
provide information or withhold testimony or information with respect
to another's legal claim or defense; or (h) To take wrongful action as
an official against anyone or anything, or wrongfully withhold
official action, or cause such action or withholding; or (i) To bring
about or continue a strike, boycott, or other similar collective
action to obtain property which is not demanded or received for the
benefit of the group which the actor purports to represent; or (j) To
do any other act which is intended to harm substantially the person
threatened or another with respect to his or her health, safety,
business, financial condition, or personal relationships;</p>
</blockquote>
<p>However, the illegality of a &quot;threat&quot; comes from specific statutes declaring a particular type of threat to be illegal, and a statute may require a narrower set of conditions, for instance <a href="https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.61.160" rel="nofollow noreferrer">RCW 9.61.160</a> which is a class B felony (second most severe degree) requires that a person specifically threaten to</p>
<blockquote>
<p>bomb or otherwise injure any public or private school building, any
place of worship or public assembly, any governmental property, or any
other building, common carrier, or structure, or any place used for
human occupancy...</p>
</blockquote>
<p>A misdemeanor variety of threatening (legally subsumed under the rubric <a href="https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.46.020" rel="nofollow noreferrer">&quot;harrassment&quot;</a>) if you knowingly and without lawful authority threaten</p>
<blockquote>
<p>(i) To cause bodily injury immediately or in the future to the person
threatened or to any other person; or (ii) To cause physical damage to
the property of a person other than the actor; or (iii) To subject the
person threatened or any other person to physical confinement or
restraint; or (iv) Maliciously to do any other act which is intended
to substantially harm the person threatened or another with respect to
his or her physical or mental health or safety</p>
</blockquote>
<p>As it happens, in Seattle, it was until the end of February to evict a tenant for non-payment of rent: but it was not illegal to communicate an intent to evict (it was simply legally futile to do so). Such a communication doesn't fall within the scope of harrassment-type threats because it does not damage person or property, or to confine a person. A fanciful interpretation of clause (iv) is precluded because the &quot;threat&quot; must be &quot;malicious&quot;, which by definition</p>
<blockquote>
<p>import[s] an evil intent, wish, or design to vex, annoy, or injure
another person. Malice may be inferred from an act done in willful
disregard of the rights of another, or an act wrongfully done without
just cause or excuse, or an act or omission of duty betraying a
willful disregard of social duty</p>
</blockquote>
<p>whereas the intent is plainly to collect past-due rent. The line would be drawn at a threat to physically eject a tenant (which is against the law).</p>
