> It would be hard to argue that the company that owns the computers has unauthorized access. That's not the way I'd argue. I'd say the company has authorized

> It would be hard to argue that the company that owns the computers has unauthorized access. That's not the way I'd argue. I'd say the company has authorized access and they then gave access to fraudsters who should not have been given access to the system, which is where they were aiding the fraud. So they aren't the principal offender, but they did aid in the offence which is what I'm suggesting makes them an accomplice (although as another paulpauper points out, an accomplice has to be aware they're aiding a crime - being duped isn't a crime).