Introduction

Matrix organization

Mergers by absorption

Risks related to the expansion of the scope of criminal liability of legal entities

Validity conditions

Proof of delegation

Exemption from individual liability of delegator

Attribution of offense to legal entity

Delegations of authority

Criminal risk management within business organizations

Complicity in crimes against humanity

Breaches of secrecy

Personal data breaches

Theft

Extortion

Blackmail

Fraud

Misappropriation

Receiving/concealment of unlawfully obtained property (recel)

Attacks on automated data processing systems

Money laundering

Misappropriation by public official (concussion)

Corruption and influence peddling

Unlawful acquisition of an interest

Favoritism

Forgery and use of forgeries

Violation of Criminal Code

Offenses under the Monetary and Financial Code

Offenses under the Commercial Code

Environmental Code violations

Offenses arising from other codes

Types of offenses

Offenses under the Criminal Code, the Commercial Code, or the Environmental Code, Criminal procedure

White Collar Crime (en cours)

Forgery and the use of forgeries constitute intentional offenses, for which proof of the fraudulent nature of the alteration of the truth must be provided (Art. 441-1 Criminal Code). This fraudulent nature results from the awareness by the perpetrator, regardless of motive, of the alteration of the truth in a document capable of establishing proof of a right or fact, leading to legal consequences  …

Moral element

Forgery and the use of forgeries constitute intentional offenses, for which proof of the fraudulent nature of the alteration of the truth must be provided (Art. 441-1 Criminal Code). This fraudulent nature results from the awareness by the perpetrator, regardless of motive, of the alteration of the truth in a document capable of establishing proof of a right or fact, leading to legal consequences . It is excluded when the disputed documents contain a simple error .

When a material forgery is committed, intent is inferred from the uncontested materiality of the facts, that is, from the mere creation of the document intended to create the appearance of a false prejudicial legal situation . In the case of intellectual forgery, the courts must establish intent, notably by demonstrating that the defendant knew the content of their statements was false or, at the very least, could not have been unaware that the statements were incorrect . However, it is generally irrelevant whether the defendant intended to harm others . Thus, criminal intent may result from using yellowed paper to enhance the credibility and authenticity of contracts for services, the object of the falsification, which is indicative of the defendant's state of mind and the purpose for which these contracts were created .

In principle, the defendant's professional status does not factor into the assessment of intent. Thus, a notary's failure to fulfill professional obligations of advising and verifying the identity of parties, or an expert's failure, is not sufficient to establish the required fraudulent intent . However, when the fraudulent alteration of the truth is materially established, courts do not hesitate to rely on professional status to infer intent . This is particularly the case when a notary signs an authentic deed in the absence of the parties, knowing that the deed states that it is to be signed in their presence: this knowledge alone is sufficient to establish the intentional element of forgery, without the need to prove fraudulent intent .

Cass. crim., 3 May 1995, LawLex202200010498JBJ; 21 September 2014, LawLex202100002004JBJ; 5 May 2021, LawLex202200009674JBJ, which specifies that the intentional element is not established when the documents contain a simple mistake.

Cass. crim., 5 May 2021, LawLex202200009674JBJ.

Cass. crim., 16 January 2019, LawLex202200010220JBJ; 12 September 2018, No 17-85.825, LawLex202200010717JBJ.

Cass. crim., 23 November 1995, LawLex202200010174JBJ; 6 January 2021, LawLex202200010390JBJ.

Cass. crim., 3 May 1995, LawLex202200010498JBJ. See, however, Cass. crim., 24 February 1972, No 70-92.605, LawLex202200010172JBJ, which specifies that fraudulent intent is inferred from the defendant's knowledge of causing harm to others by altering the truth.

Cass. crim., 12 September 2018, LawLex202200010717JBJ.

Cass. crim., 29 January 1998, LawLex202200010177JBJ.

Cass. crim., 18 May 2005, LawLex200600002183JBJ, for an expert who submitted a report having only performed a formal check while the report mentioned an examination several times during the work, the courts noting that the defendant knew, due to his professional capacity, that his intervention was aimed at putting the vehicle back into circulation for resale.

Cass. crim., 12 February 2025, LawLex202500001017JBJ.

White Collar Crime (en cours)

165. Moral element

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

165. Moral element

Demandez un accès gratuit au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise