Criminal Threats in the Jordanian Penal Code: Forms, Elements and Penalties
The seriousness of a threat is not measured by what actually happened, but by the fear and apprehension planted in the victim's mind. For this reason the legislature treated it as an attack on a person's security, peace of mind and psychological freedom, and regulated it in Articles 349–354 of the Jordanian Penal Code No. 16 of 1960 and its amendments; the Telecommunications Law also contains a specific provision on threats and messages sent through telecommunications means. The practical difficulty in these files is that the same phrase may be read as a punishable threat in one context, and as words spoken in a fit of anger that do not reach the level of the provision in another, and that the applicable provision and the prescribed penalty change with the means used, the content of the threat and the gravity of the crime threatened. Accordingly, the legal characterization of the facts, whether from the position of the complainant or of the respondent, is not a linguistic exercise settled by reading the message, but the work of a specialist lawyer who reads it in light of the overlapping provisions that govern threats in Jordanian law.
1. The Concept of the Crime of Threats
A threat is any word, act or means capable of instilling fear and terror in the victim, by promising to inflict an unjustified harm on them or to commit a crime against them.
A threat may occur on its own, or it may be a means of committing another crime, such as when it is combined with theft, indecent assault (hatk al-'ird) or other crimes.
The crime of threats does not require that the offender actually be able to carry out what they threatened, since the basis of criminalization is the nature of the threat and its effect on the victim, provided the elements required by the legal provision are present.
The interest the law protects here is a person's psychological peace of mind and freedom of will; a threat strikes at their ability to go about their affairs without having to reckon with what someone else might do to them. In practice, this characterization explains why the crime is complete before any material harm occurs, and why the act remains punishable even if the offender abandons carrying out what they threatened.
Among the finest points the lawyer examines when assessing the file is the description of the threatened harm as "unjustified"; signaling the exercise of a legally established right does not in itself constitute the criminal description, while threatening to inflict a harm with no legal basis falls within the scope of the provisions. Distinguishing between the two situations rests on reading the phrase in the context of the relationship between the parties and what preceded and followed it, and it cannot be done properly without a specialist lawyer reviewing the entire file.
2. Forms of Threats
Threats take many forms, the most prominent of which are:
- Threatening by drawing a weapon.
- Threatening to commit a felony or a misdemeanor.
- Oral or written threats.
- Threats made through a third person.
- Threatening to inflict an unjustified harm on the victim.
- Threats made using telecommunications means and electronic messages.
In a threat, account is taken of the means used, the content of the threat, the circumstances of the incident and the extent of its effect on the victim, according to the applicable legal provision.
The channel through which the threat passed is one of the keys to characterization in these crimes. The legislature did not treat alike a word spoken to the victim's face, a sealed letter that reaches them, a message conveyed to them through a third person, and a threat transmitted to them through telecommunications means. Each of these channels has its own place in the provisions, and therefore its own penalty and its own path of proof. This is why the lawyer begins with a question that comes before everything else: by what route did the threat arrive, and what evidence of that route remains?
3. The Elements of the Crime of Threats
The Legal Element
The legal element rests on the existence of a provision that criminalizes the act of threatening and prescribes a penalty for it; the Jordanian Penal Code regulates the forms of threats in Articles 349 to 354.
The Material Element
The material element (actus reus) is fulfilled when the offender performs an act, says words or uses a means capable of causing fear or terror in the victim, whether the threat is made orally, in writing, through another person or by drawing a weapon.
The Mental Element
The mental element (mens rea) of the crime of threats rests on criminal intent, meaning the offender's knowledge of the nature of their act and the direction of their will toward conduct capable of affecting the victim and instilling fear in them.
It is not required that the motive for the threat be revenge or obtaining money; what matters is that the elements of the crime are present and that the offender intended to make the threat, not the personal motives that drove them to it.
This distinction between intent and motive is a recurring point of dispute in these files; it is often argued that the phrase was said as a joke, in a passing quarrel or under provocation, and these are defenses that relate to motive and context, not necessarily to the absence of intent. Ordering these defenses, and determining whether they lead to the absence of intent or merely to mitigating the circumstances, is something the lawyer builds on the whole body of evidence, not on the phrase alone.
4. Threatening by Drawing a Weapon
Article 349 of the Jordanian Penal Code criminalizes threatening by drawing a weapon, and provides:
"Whoever threatens another by drawing a weapon on him shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than six months."
If the weapon is a firearm and the offender used it, the penalty is imprisonment for not less than one year according to the provision.
This form requires that the weapon be drawn in a way that makes the victim realize they are being threatened with it, taking into account the circumstances of the incident and the means of the threat. In practice, the dispute in this form turns on whether what happened was the drawing of a weapon in a manner understood as a threat, or merely the presence of a weapon at the scene without it being pointed; this is a fine distinction that rests on the testimony of those present, inspection of the scene and the sequence of events.
5. Threatening to Commit a Felony
Article 350 of the Penal Code deals with threatening to commit a felony punishable by the death penalty, life labor or temporary labor for fifteen years, if the threat is made by means of a sealed letter or through a third person, and includes an order to do an act, even a lawful one, or to refrain from it.
The provision punishes this form with imprisonment from six months to three years.
Article 351, for its part, deals with oral threats, prescribing imprisonment from one month to two years in the cases the provision specifies and upon the complaint of the injured party.
One element in this form escapes many people: the threat being coupled with an order to the victim to do something or refrain from it. When the threat is used to push the person into a particular course of conduct, it shifts from mere intimidation to a means of overpowering another's will, which explains the upward graduation of the penalty in this case. Measuring this element against the facts of a particular file, and showing whether or not the phrase contained an order in this sense, is one of the points a specialist lawyer pauses on before taking any step.
6. Threatening a Lesser Felony or a Misdemeanor
Article 352 provides for punishing a threat of a felony lesser than those mentioned in Article 350, if made by one of the means set out there, upon the complaint of the injured party, with the penalty the provision specifies.
Article 353 likewise provides for punishing a threat of a misdemeanor if it includes an order and is made in writing or through a third person, upon the complaint of the injured party, with imprisonment for not more than six months.
The sequence of these provisions shows that the legislature built a graduated ladder: at the top, threatening the gravest felonies; at the bottom, threatening an unjustified harm that does not amount to a crime; and in between, levels determined by the gravity of what the victim was threatened with, the means by which the threat reached them and the presence or absence of an order. Determining the level at which the facts fall is the core of the legal work in these files.
7. Threatening to Inflict an Unjustified Harm
Article 354 of the Jordanian Penal Code covers forms of threats that do not fall within the previous cases, providing for the punishment of any other threat to inflict an unjustified harm, if made orally or by one of the means mentioned in Article 73, and if it is capable of affecting the victim severely.
Prosecution is upon the complaint of the injured party, and the penalty under the provision is imprisonment of up to one week or the fine specified by law.
Two conditions in this provision give the practitioner pause: that the threatened harm be "unjustified", and that the threat be capable of affecting the victim "severely". The second condition is what is known in practice as the seriousness standard of the threat, and its basis is that the words be capable in themselves and in their circumstances of producing that effect, not merely that the victim felt uneasy because of them. Assessing seriousness in this way is among the hardest things on which a position is built, because it combines the content of the phrase, the person who said it and their relationship with the victim.
8. Threats Through Telecommunications Means
Criminalization is not limited to traditional threats; it also covers threats made using telecommunications means.
Article 75 of the Telecommunications Law provides for punishing anyone who, by any telecommunications means, sends threatening or insulting messages or messages contrary to public morals, or conveys a fabricated report with the intent of causing panic, with the penalty the provision specifies, which includes imprisonment from one month to one year or a fine from 300 to 2,000 Jordanian dinars (JOD), or both penalties.
Accordingly, sending a threatening message by telephone or other means of communication may give rise to independent criminal liability under the specific provision, depending on the nature of the incident and the applicable legal provision. This path differs from the criminalization path in the cybercrime legislation, which stands on its own and has its own authorities and evidence, and is a separate subject reviewed in detail in the article Cybercrime in Jordanian Law. The question settled first in digital threat files is not the content of the message, but its attribution to its sender and the integrity of the evidence that carries it, which is at once a technical and a legal question that the lawyer assesses early.
Practical note: The fines and limits set out in specific provisions, particularly in telecommunications legislation, change through amending laws, and the applicable provision remains the one in force at the time the act was committed, not at the time of the complaint; for this reason the lawyer builds the position on the version in force at the time of the incident, a point on which the commonly circulated figures are not enough without reviewing the file or consulting a specialist lawyer.
9. Must the Offender Be Able to Carry Out the Threat?
The principle is that liability for a threat does not depend, in itself, on the offender's actual ability to carry out what they threatened; rather, regard is had to the nature of the threat, the means used, its content, the surrounding circumstances and its capacity to produce the effect required by the legal provision.
Therefore, a threatening phrase is not assessed in isolation from the circumstances of the incident; rather, the court examines the whole body of evidence and circumstances to reach the truth of the offender's intent and the nature of the act committed.
Here lies one of the most common misconceptions among litigants: the belief that proving it was impossible to carry out the threat is enough in itself to remove the criminal description. In reality, the impossibility of carrying it out may be a factor in assessing the seriousness of the threat and its effect, but it is not a decisive defense in itself, and its place in building the position is among the matters the lawyer settles after reviewing the file.
10. Threats as an Independent Crime or as an Element of Another Crime
A threat may be a crime in its own right, and it may at the same time be a means or an element of another crime.
In this context, the Jordanian Court of Cassation, in its criminal capacity, held in Judgment No. 2885 of 2020 that threatening by brandishing a sharp instrument, where it formed one of the elements of the felony of indecent assault by threat, is not punished as an independent crime, since the threat was part of the makeup of the other crime.
This confirms the importance of determining the relationship between the threat and the other crimes committed in the same incident, so as to prevent double criminalization and punishment for the same act.
The effect of this distinction extends to crimes in which coercion is inherently part of their makeup, including the crime of highway robbery, where the threat is viewed as the means by which an element of the original crime was achieved, not as a separate incident prosecuted independently. Settling this relationship at the start of the file has a direct effect on the number of criminal descriptions charged and on the outcome of the penalty, which is why it is among the first points a specialist lawyer raises when reviewing the indictment.
11. A Comparison Table of the Paths of Liability for Threats
Many litigants confuse three situations governed by entirely different rules; the following table distinguishes between them:
| Point of comparison | Threat as an independent crime | Threat as an element of another crime | Threat through telecommunications means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Governing provision | Articles 349–354 of the Penal Code | The provision of the original crime of which the threat formed part | Article 75 of the Telecommunications Law |
| Relevant channel | Words, a sealed letter, conveyance through an intermediary, or drawing a weapon | The means by which coercion was achieved in the original crime | Any telecommunications means, including messages and calls |
| Gradation of gravity | Graduated according to the gravity of the crime threatened and the presence of an order, from imprisonment of up to one week to imprisonment from six months to three years | Absorbed into the penalty for the original crime and not punished independently | Imprisonment from one month to one year or a fine from 300 to 2,000 dinars, or both penalties |
| Decisive factual question | Were the elements of the applicable specific provision present in terms of means, content and gravity of what was threatened? | Was the threat part of the makeup of the other crime or separate from it? | Was the attribution of the message to its sender and the integrity of its evidence proven? |
| Prosecution condition | Complaint by the injured party in a number of forms | Follows the original crime | According to the specific provision |
12. What the Lawyer Scrutinizes in a Threats File
The legal work in these files does not begin with the penalty provision, but with establishing the facts in a way that allows them to be read in light of the correct provision. Among the most prominent matters the lawyer examines:
- The evidence carrying the threat, from messages, calls and testimony, and whether it can be relied on; digital evidence of threats is among the quickest evidence to disappear by its nature and its storage media.
- The description of the threatened harm, and whether it falls within the meaning of "unjustified harm" or within signaling the exercise of a right.
- The seriousness of the threat and its effect, by the standard the provisions require, not by personal impression.
- The channel through which the threat arrived, because it is what moves the facts from one provision to another and changes the penalty with them.
- The relationship between the threat and the other acts in the same incident, to prevent duplication of criminal descriptions or the dropping of a description that should have been charged.
- The complaint condition and its timing, because in a number of forms of threats the legislature made prosecution conditional on the complaint of the injured party.
Determining the authority to which the complaint is submitted and the most appropriate order of procedure differ according to the form of the threat, its means and the extent of the need for urgent action to preserve the evidence, which is itself a legal point that merits consultation before taking any step.
On the respondent's side, there is a practical rule whose neglect has consequences that are hard to remedy: Do not make any statement or explanation about the content of a message or phrase attributed to you before presenting the file to a specialist lawyer, and do not sign a report whose wording has not been read to you precisely; what is recorded in the first hours stays with the file to its final stages.
13. Frequently Asked Questions
Is the crime of threats established if the offender is unable to carry out what they threatened?
Liability does not depend, in itself, on the actual ability to carry it out; rather, regard is had to the nature of the threat, its means, its content and the surrounding circumstances. The effect of impossibility of execution on building the position is a characterization the lawyer settles after reviewing the file.
What is the difference in penalty between an oral threat and a written threat?
The legislature drew a clear distinction between them; oral threats are dealt with in Article 351 with imprisonment from one month to two years in the cases the provision specifies and upon the complaint of the injured party, while threatening a grave felony, if made by a sealed letter or through a third person and including an order, is punished under Article 350 with imprisonment from six months to three years.
Is a threatening message sent by phone an independent crime?
It may give rise to criminal liability under Article 75 of the Telecommunications Law, whose penalty includes imprisonment from one month to one year or a fine from 300 to 2,000 dinars, or both penalties, depending on the nature of the incident and the applicable provision.
Is the accused punished for both the threat and the other crime?
The Jordanian Court of Cassation, in its criminal capacity, held in Judgment No. 2885 of 2020 that a threat is not punished as an independent crime where it formed one of the elements of the other crime. Settling this relationship is technical work the lawyer carries out when reviewing the descriptions charged against the client.
Does prosecution for threats depend on the complaint of the injured party?
The legislature made prosecution conditional on the complaint of the injured party in a number of forms of threats, as provided in Articles 351, 352, 353 and 354 in the cases they set out. Determining the form that applies to the facts comes before any procedure, and the lawyer assesses it before the complaint is filed or answered.
Must the motive for the threat be revenge or obtaining money?
That is not required. What matters is that the elements of the crime are present and that the offender intended to make the threat, not the personal motives that drove them to it.
How important is it to preserve messages and conversations in a threats file?
The digital evidence carrying the threat disappears quickly by its nature, and losing it empties the file of its supporting evidence. Assessing which of these materials can be relied on, and how to secure it, is among the first things the lawyer works on in the first hours.
Legal Consultation
Threat files are among the files in which both parties most often misjudge the stakes; on the victim's side, a message that constitutes complete evidence is neglected and lost, and on the respondent's side, a passing phrase is read in the narrowest possible characterization and they are then surprised by a criminal description more serious than they expected. The difference between imprisonment not exceeding one week and imprisonment extending to three years does not rest on the content of the phrase alone, but on the means, the order, the gravity of what was threatened, and the complaint condition and its timing, elements that are settled in the first days and whose course is hard to correct once the report is fixed. For specialist legal consultation in criminal cases, or to review related matters in the crimes of defamation (dhamm), slander (qadh) and insult (tahqir) in Jordanian law, the public right and the private right in Jordanian law and the crime of assault causing bodily harm in the Jordanian Penal Code, you can contact Alabwini Law Firm.
