I have a lot of experience with this subject and it probably meets the requirements of what can be defined as 'organised crime'. I'm going to drop the word 'cyber' as it is implied by the type of crime it is

There is no single legal definition of what that means. But in general the following requirements are usually met; the crime is serious, planned, coordinated and perpetrated by individuals working together in a ongoing basis.

Without knowing all the facts, (no one does) this is probably organised crime, as there is appears to be evidence of each of the above requirements.

It will be down to the authority conducting the investigation to produce an evidential case that they can take to court and gain convictions.

Convictions on what will be down to legal teams and lawyers. This would need to be done before we can really define this as organised crime, even then it could be difficult to define. There have been cases of terror legislation being used against various computer misuse cases in which the perpetrators definitely were not terrorists.

It is a gray area, but for the purposes and standards required for a presentation, I would say on the face of it, the ashley madison case passes the test to be labelled organised crime. Even if it does not meet the definition of what many would consider traditional organised crime...which in itself has a morphing and evolving definition.

Regardless it is definitely a serious crime so it will fall under the same/similar remit.

I have a lot of experience with this subject and it probably meets the requirements of what can be defined as 'organised crime'. I'm going to drop the word 'cyber' as it is implied by the type of crime it is

There is no single legal definition of what that means. But in general the following requirements are usually met; the crime is serious, planned, coordinated and perpetrated by individuals working together in a ongoing basis.

Without knowing all the facts, (no one does) this is probably organised crime, as there appears to be evidence of each of the above requirements.

It will be down to the authority conducting the investigation to produce an evidential case that they can take to court and gain convictions.

Convictions on what, will be down to legal teams and lawyers. This would need to be done before we can really define this as organised crime, even then it could be difficult to define. For example; there have been cases of terror legislation being used against various computer misuse cases in which the perpetrators definitely were not terrorists.

It is a gray area, but for the purposes and standards required for a presentation, I would say on the face of it, the Ashley Madison case passes the test to be labelled organised crime. Even if it does not meet the definition of what many would consider traditional organised crime, which in itself has a morphing and evolving definition.

Regardless it is definitely a serious crime so it will fall under the same/similar remit.

I have a lot of experience with this subject and it probably meets the requirements of what can be defined as 'organised crime'. I'm going to drop the word 'cyber' as it is implied by the type of crime it is

There is no single legal definition of what that means. But in general the following requirements are usually met; the crime is serious, planned, coordinated and perpetrated by individuals working together in a ongoing basis.

Without knowing all the facts, (no one does) this is probably organised crime, as there is appears to be evidence of each of the above requirements.

It will be down to the authority conducting the investigation to produce an evidential case that they can take to court and gain convictions.

Convictions on what will be down to legal teams and lawyers. This would need to be done before we can really define this as organised crime, even then it could be difficult to define. There have been cases of terror legislation being used against various computer misuse cases in which the perpetrators definitely were not terrorists.

It is a gray area, but for the purposes and standards required for a presentation, I would say on the face of it, the ashley madison case passes the test to be labelled organised crime. Even if does not meet the definition of what many would consider traditional organised crime...which in itself is a morphing and evolving definition.

Regardless it is definitely a serious crime so it will fall under the same/similar remit.

I have a lot of experience with this subject and it probably meets the requirements of what can be defined as 'organised crime'. I'm going to drop the word 'cyber' as it is implied by the type of crime it is

There is no single legal definition of what that means. But in general the following requirements are usually met; the crime is serious, planned, coordinated and perpetrated by individuals working together in a ongoing basis.

Without knowing all the facts, (no one does) this is probably organised crime, as there is appears to be evidence of each of the above requirements.

It will be down to the authority conducting the investigation to produce an evidential case that they can take to court and gain convictions.

Convictions on what will be down to legal teams and lawyers. This would need to be done before we can really define this as organised crime, even then it could be difficult to define. There have been cases of terror legislation being used against various computer misuse cases in which the perpetrators definitely were not terrorists.

It is a gray area, but for the purposes and standards required for a presentation, I would say on the face of it, the ashley madison case passes the test to be labelled organised crime. Even if it does not meet the definition of what many would consider traditional organised crime...which in itself has a morphing and evolving definition.

Regardless it is definitely a serious crime so it will fall under the same/similar remit.