This page gives a general overview of these practice areas. For detailed explanations and practical guidance, see the related subpages.
Computer crimes against children under the UCMJ center on three main areas:
Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM) under Article 134
Online solicitation, enticement, and indecent communications involving minors
Sextortion and AI-generated or digitally altered CSAM
These cases are in the realm of sex offenses and are treated as seriously as any crime under the UCMJ, perhaps more seriously than any other.
They combine federal reporting requirements, specialized task forces, and advanced trial strategies, and they often carry lifelong collateral consequences such as sex-offender registration and permanent employment limitations.
This page introduces you to some basic concepts. The subpages explain the specific offenses, investigative methods, and other issues in more detail.
If you are reading an investigative report or speaking with law enforcement, you will see technical terms that most people have never heard before. To help you track what those terms actually mean, we’ve created a plain-English Terminology Guide based on the Luxembourg Guidelines. It explains how investigators use words like “CSAM,” “online enticement,” “self-generated content,” “hash value,” and “distribution,” so you can understand what’s really being alleged. You can see that guide by clicking here.
Pornography is a term primarily used for adults engaging in consensual sexual acts distributed to the general public for their sexual entertainment. The concern when it comes to children is that “pornography” (the term and the thing) has become increasingly normalised and can contribute to diminishing the seriousness of, or even legitimizing, what is actually sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children. The term “child pornography” might imply that the acts are carried out with the consent of the child, and represent legitimate sexual material. The term “Child Sex Abuse Material” removes that ambiguity. The term “child pornography” is still common, still appears in statutes, and is commonly used by people looking for help with a legal situation, so we have included it here.
The UCMJ Articles Used in Computer Crimes Against Children
Most computer-based offenses involving minors are charged under Article 134 of the UCMJ. Article 134 incorporates child pornography crimes from federal law and adds military-specific tests for prejudice to good order and discipline and service discredit.
Depending on the facts, other articles might also apply:
Article 120b: sexual abuse of a child, including attempts and online conduct
Article 127: extortion, used in sextortion cases
Article 120c: other sexual misconduct involving images or recordings
General Article 134 offenses involving indecent conduct and improper communication
In many cases, the government stacks these charges. A sextortion case, for example, might include extortion, attempted sexual abuse of a child, attempted production of CSAM, and indecent communications. The charging approach reflects how investigators and prosecutors view these cases: as networks of related misconduct rather than isolated acts.
Where These Cases Come From
Many CSAM investigations begin with a report to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which acts as a clearinghouse.
Electronic service providers are required by federal law to report suspected CSAM detected on their platforms. Those CyberTipline reports can contain:
basic descriptions of files
hash values that identify images that have been established as contraband
IP addresses and account identifiers
NCMEC forwards the reports to the appropriate civilian or federal agencies, which then coordinate with military investigators if the user appears to be a service member.
Other cases originate when:
a repair technician discovers files on a device
a family member, roommate, or partner sees images on a phone or laptop
contraband is discovered during a separate investigation, such as an Article 120b case
undercover operations identify a service member in a peer-to-peer network or chat room
Once an investigation begins, the service member’s devices, accounts, and online activity become the focus of a broad forensic review.
CSAM Possession, Distribution, and Production
Article 134 treats CSAM as a group of distinct offenses. Our CSAM page details the elements and maximum punishments. The main categories are:
possessing, receiving, or viewing CSAM
possessing CSAM with intent to distribute
distributing CSAM
producing or attempting to produce CSAM
The law covers visual depictions that show actual minors in sexually explicit conduct and, in some circumstances, depictions that appear to show minors. Questions about knowledge and wrongfulness are central to every CSAM case. The prosecution must prove the accused:
had control over the files
knew what the files depicted
intended to obtain, possess, view, etc.
These issues overlap with technical questions about how files were created, stored, and accessed, which is why digital forensic expertise is the key to nearly every case.
Solicitation, Enticement, and Indecent Communication
Article 134 is also used to charge online conduct that targets minors without necessarily involving CSAM files. This includes:
solicitation of a minor to commit a sexual act or send explicit images
enticement, where an accused uses messages or chats to lure a minor to a meeting or live video interaction
indecent communications with a minor that fall short of solicitation but are sexually explicit or exploitative
In many investigations the “minor” is an undercover agent or a persona controlled by law enforcement. The UCMJ focuses on what the accused believed and intended. If the accused thought they were speaking with a minor, they can face the same charges even if no actual child was involved.
Sextortion: Extortion, Sexual Misconduct, and Child-Focused Offenses
Sextortion cases combine sexual content with threats. They can involve adults on both sides or a minor victim. Because there is no single sextortion article, prosecutors use a mix of statutes:
Article 127: extortion based on threats to release sexual images or private information
Article 120c: misuse of images or recordings, especially when intimate material is captured or shared
Article 120b and Article 134: when the target is a minor or believed to be a minor and the accused attempts to obtain sexual images or live acts
When the victim is believed to be a child, sextortion charges often overlap with attempted production or attempted distribution of CSAM. The law treats the attempt as serious even if no images were ultimately obtained. Our sextortion and AI-CSAM page walks through how these combinations appear in charge sheets and why multiple articles are often used.
AI-Generated and Digitally Altered CSAM
“Synthetic”/Generated imagery has become a major focus in recent years. Article 134 offenses now commonly cover:
AI-created images that depict a real child’s face on an apparent sexual image
fully synthetic children who do not exist but appear underage and abused
AI-modified versions of existing CSAM that produce new files
chat-based grooming where AI tools assist in impersonating minors
The focus in these cases is on the visual depiction. If it appears to show a minor in sexually explicit conduct and meets statutory tests, it can be treated the same as traditional CSAM. The fact that a file was generated or altered by software does not shield the accused from prosecution.
This creates new questions for both sides: how to distinguish real from synthetic imagery, how to prove age, and how to address the volume of images that can be produced in a short period of time, and how any of these issues might relate to the degree of harm and the risk of re-offending.
How Digital Investigations Work
CSAM and computer crime cases involve a thorough review of the service member’s digital life. Investigators typically:
seize and image computers, phones, tablets, external drives, and game consoles
collect router logs, network-attached storage, and sometimes smart devices
obtain provider records for email, messaging, cloud storage, and social media
gather IP address records and subscriber information from internet providers
They use hash values to flag known CSAM, peer-to-peer analysis to identify file sharing, and artifact searches to find deleted or partially overwritten data. Investigators also record:
search histories and browser activity
metadata linking files to specific accounts or devices
attempts to use VPNs, disk-wiping tools, or encryption
From the government’s perspective, the goal is to map where files came from, how they moved, and who controlled them. For the defense, the same data can show shared devices, automatic downloads, malware, or other explanations that affect knowledge and intent.
Knowledge, Age, and Proof
Two recurring issues define many computer-based child cases:
Did the accused know what the files depicted and that it was wrongful?
Were files clearly labeled or hidden in obscure folders
Were they opened and viewed or only cached by software
Did the accused try to delete, report, or avoid the material
Can the government prove that the person depicted is a minor?
In some cases the victim has been identified
In others, age is inferred from physical appearance, context, and expert opinion
Please see our How CSAM Cases are Prosecuted and Defended page for an overview of how Tanner staging is used in some prosecutions to estimate age from still images and why those methods have limits. Age issues and evidence can become contested issues, even in cases involving AI and digitally altered imagery.
Consequences of Conviction
A conviction for CSAM, online solicitation of a minor, or related computer crimes against children can result in:
lengthy confinement, up to thirty years for certain offenses
a dishonorable or bad-conduct discharge
loss of veterans benefits and retirement eligibility
mandatory sex-offender registration in most cases
persistent restrictions on residence, employment, and contact with minors
Even when confinement exposure is capped, the long-term impact on work, housing, and family life is severe. These cases are practically and emotionally life-altering, independent of the formal sentence.
Defense Challenges in Computer Crimes Against Children
Defending these cases requires attention to both technical and human factors. Common defense issues include:
reliability and scope of CyberTipline and provider reports
errors in search warrants, imaging, and forensic analysis
shared access to devices and accounts
automatic caching and background downloads
age proof and distinctions between real and synthetic imagery
mental health, trauma history, and risk assessment at sentencing
Digital forensic experts can examine whether files were intentionally accessed, whether timestamps are accurate, and whether malware or remote activity could explain the presence of files. Forensic psychologists can provide context on mental health, cognitive limitations, or treatment needs when the focus turns to sentencing.
Our subpages walk through these topics in detail.
Our Experience in CSAM and Computer Crimes Against Children
Our attorneys have spent more than twenty-five years defending service members accused of CSAM possession, distribution, production, online solicitation, and sextortion. Much of that work has involved:
cases originating from CyberTipline reports and provider notifications
sting operations where undercover agents pose as minors
AI-related and digitally altered imagery
overlapping federal and military investigations
We are used to cases where digital evidence, forensic psychology, and harsh collateral consequences all converge. Our work in this area has always focused on careful examination of the forensic record, realistic assessment of the government’s case, and clear explanation of the issues to the court.
Just Say No to Porn
We strongly discourage our clients from viewing pornography of any kind. The risk of being exposed to CSAM is far higher than most people realize. Even when a site claims that everyone depicted is over 18, that claim is not legally binding. It might help with defending your intent, but it will not shield you if an image appears to show a minor. Investigators and courts focus on what is visible in the file, not on what a platform (with a high profit motive) asserts. Accidental exposure happens, watermarks and “age-verified” labels are unreliable, and the line between adult content and material tied to coercion or trafficking is not something a user can reliably police. Avoiding pornography altogether is the only way to remove that risk from your life and from a future investigation.
If You Need Guidance, Draw on Our Expertise
If you are under investigation or charged with a computer-based offense involving a minor under the UCMJ and do not yet understand how the accusations are framed or what the evidence means, you can contact our office for a confidential review. Send us a contact form or call 800-319-3134. We can walk you through the Articles involved, how these cases are built, and the decisions you will need to make as your case moves forward.