New Delhi: Continuing the high-level discussions on the second day of the FutureCrime Summit 2026 at Bharat Mandapam, global experts, law enforcement leaders, and diplomatic strategists gathered for Panel 10. Titled “The Future of Digital Peace: International Cooperation Against Emerging Cyber Threats,” the session examined the critical necessity of multi-nation collaboration, bilateral agreements, and intelligence sharing to counter cross-border cybercrime networks.
Transnational Threat Dynamics and Trust Deficits
Moderated by Smith Gonsalves, CEO of CyberSmithSecure, the discussion focused on overcoming international trust deficits, standardizing digital evidence sharing across jurisdictions, and implementing proactive deterrence mechanisms to preserve global digital peace.
The transition from localized cyber attacks to state-sponsored and multi-jurisdictional threat syndicates presents complex operational challenges for global law enforcement. By establishing multi-lateral partnerships and real-time intelligence conduits, sovereign nations can counter borderless digital crimes that bypass traditional legal boundaries.
Detailed Insights Across Global Law Enforcement, Policy, and Legislative Frameworks
Suhel Daud, Legal Attaché at the FBI US Embassy, detailed the operational hurdles facing global law enforcement, highlighting a massive surge in transnational cybercrime originating from specialized scam complexes in Southeast Asia, notably Cambodia. He noted that individual enterprise defenses frequently fail when targeted by sophisticated state-backed syndicates, making asset diversification and heightened operational vigilance imperative. Daud emphasized that the primary bottleneck in global cyber enforcement remains a severe institutional trust deficit among nations. To bridge this gap, the FBI established a dedicated anti-cyber center in Bangkok to coordinate with regional judiciaries and gather victim testimonies, reaffirming that cross-border digital crime cannot be effectively dismantled by any single jurisdiction acting in isolation.
Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Pawan Anand, AVSM (Retd.), Director at USI of India (Centre for Emerging Tech for AtmaNirbhar Bharat), analyzed the geopolitical policy dimensions of threat convergence, underscoring the role of strategic think tanks in formulating responsive defense frameworks. He warned that artificial intelligence and cybersecurity are now deeply intertwined, giving rise to emerging threat vectors such as algorithmic lateral poisoning. Maj. Gen. Anand argued that resolving jurisdictional friction during attribution investigations requires forming targeted bilateral, trilateral, or quad-level multilateral security partnerships, as traditional national regulatory structures struggle to keep pace with rapid technological advancements.
Tai Jung Ho, Representative from the Taipei Economic and Cultural Center, offered regional perspectives based on Taiwan’s statutory advancements enacted in 2025 to reinforce national cyber defenses. Re-evaluating the role of artificial intelligence in modern security operations, he noted that security professionals are not replaced by AI systems directly, but rather by operators who effectively leverage AI tools. Given that automated attack vectors run continuously without human intervention, Tai argued that law enforcement agencies must deploy 24/7 AI-driven defensive engines, adopting a proactive “AI versus AI” operational posture to neutralize automated threats at machine speed.
Deepak Maheshwari, Senior Policy Advisor at the Centre for Social and Economic Progress, provided a comprehensive analysis of global cyber treaties and reporting mechanisms. He examined regional legal instruments such as the Council of Europe’s Budapest Convention, pointing out that India’s decision not to accede to the treaty creates persistent procedural friction for domestic law enforcement when attempting to extract cross-border digital evidence. To streamline international judicial assistance, Maheshwari advocated for pragmatic measures including global reporting synchronization, establishing centralized clearinghouses for standardized evidence exchange, and negotiating targeted bilateral treaties with strategic partner nations.
The panel concluded with a consensus that achieving long-term digital peace requires bridging institutional trust gaps, harmonizing cross-border evidence collection, and scaling multilateral AI-driven defense frameworks.
