The crime of procedural fraud

 

estafa procesal 

Procedural fraud is a subtype of crime of aggravated fraud that occurs manipulating evidence for a judicial error

 Consult your case now 

 

The crime of procedural fraud was first incorporated into our legislation Year 1983 en los arts. 528 and 529.2 Penal Code. Currently this offense is enshrined in the article 250, section 7 of our Penal Code.

It is incardinated as one of aggravated existing subtypes scam, to which it is attributed a custodial sentence of between one to six years and a fine of six to twelve months.

Structure of the crime of procedural fraud

The Supreme Court 835/2016, of 4 November, systematizing the jurisprudential doctrine of the crime of procedural fraud, He specified that this offense consists of a triangular structure which differentiates it from the ordinary crime of fraud.

So, specifically, structure is composed of:

  • The perpetrator: The agent that generates a hoax wrong -information- antecedent, enough and cause.
  • The taxpayer or deceived: Operator itself is the court handing down a decision of the fruit deception concocted by the offender
  • The injured party or third: The person is impaired or who can be with the court decision.

Concept of procedural fraud

Article 250.7º of the Penal Code stipulates that meant by crime of procedural fraud, so that:

7.º committed procedural scam. Make the same which, in legal proceedings of any kind, manipularen pretendieran tests that found their allegations or other procedural fraud analog emplearen, causing error in the judge or court and leading him to issue a decision that harms the economic interests of the other party or a third party.”

So, says the Judgment 921/2013, of 4 December, incurred in this crime when one party deceives the judge and induces, with filing false claims, to dictate a certain resolution that harms the economic interests of the other party.

Also, the judgment of the Supreme Court of 22 October 2014, stresses that the procedure is scam characterized because the deceived taxpayer is actually the head of the judiciary a quien, through a procedural maneuver ideal it is made to follow a procedure and / or adopt a resolution that would otherwise not have been issued. The result therefore and particularity of this crime, is that does not match the person deceived, who ordered error induced by performing an act of disposition broadly (Judge), who suffers injury (particularly the conned).

clear, therefore, the foundation of the aggravation of this type of fraud on the basic figure, since it not only has the virtuality of damaging the heritage particularly concerned (one on which the judgment rests), but the mechanics used is to mislead the court with what operator it is attacking the right functioning of the administration of justice.

The Supreme Court 232/2014 of 25 March referred to the flexible understanding of the crime of procedural fraud, leaving outside its scope simple defensive strategieswho merely rely on allegations, which they are not always compatible with the principle of good faith (art. 11 LOPJ) and mere omission alone when relevant issues affecting.

Therefore, so that you can qualify effectively conduct a crime of procedural fraud, “It has confirmed the negative judgment of typicality by the organ quo.

Requirements for the crime of procedural fraud

The Supreme Court 878/2004, of 12 July, He noted as basic requirements of this crime, following:

1° staff Duality

The requirement of personal duality means that does not match the person deceived (who is the judge for being whom the error induced to do or dictate the act of disposal) with whom he has suffered the injury (particularly affected).

Damage posed to the heritage of the individual it joins the attack on the judiciary which is used as a tool for service purposes defraudadoras, to the use as a mechanism for the stay deception Judge (SSTS 749/97, of 30 September).

This personal duality is expressly provided for in art itself. 248.2 Penal Code (Crime of fraud) when he speaks of "harm themselves or others".

2No. Deceit enough and suitable

This is an essential requirement that characterizes every kind of scam, consisting of the use of deception and that in these cases occurs within a judicial procedure.

As stated in the STS 22 October 2014, pretty deception must be antecedent cause the corresponding court decision.

On the suitability of deception, las SSTS 266/2011 the 332/2012, note that, to the extent that the subject is deceived Judge, technical and expert on the right, It is clear the suitability of the deception that may not be noticeable naked eye, You must overcome the normal control exercised by the judge on the facts and the documentation that is presented , ultimately must have sufficient suitability , namely, entity and consistency, as the judge fall into deception.

3º Purpose

Deception must be designed to produce error in the judge or court must know of the process.

4º intentionality

The author of this crime must have intended that the court seised of the procedure to issue a resolution determines (act of disposal) favorable to their interests

Also, According to the judgment of the Supreme Court 28 March 2019 with no resolution 456/2019, After the reform operated by the Organic Law 5/2010 They have increased, on the one hand, the typical requirements, so that only when there are heaping:

5No. Error

It causes an error in the judicial body that leads him to issue a resolution without such deception had not realizado.Y,

6º Detriment

The damage must be derived from the fruit of that court resolution deception and should be on a third.

injury, obviously it must be illegal in correspondence with profit, Illicit also constitutes the engine of the entire criminal behavior.

But, moreover, STS cited added that the new reform also caused were omitted any of the elements of basic scam, so that It is no longer necessary a positive act of transfer of assets provision.

Therefore, just a court decision unlawfully it harms the interests of one party or third party (STS nº 232/2016, of 17 March, inter).

Types of procedural fraud

The Supreme Court of 8 November 2011 and resolution number 1455/2003, notes that the doctrine distinguishes the crime of procedural fraud, by its characteristic personal duality that we have seen, between proper and improper special crime so that, will:

special crime

When the subject is deceived the judge.

the wiles, inaccuracies and falsehoods, They incorporated into the documents on which the claim is made or complaint are intended, like is logic, to defraud the injured party or what is the same, try to get an unjust sentence knowing the falsity of their claims.

If the resolution occurs, actually deceived or misled, is the judge, as the aggrieved party knows the true reality and is aware of falsehood, but fails to unmount procedurally, despite their claims and protests.

In this case there is what is known as doctrinally triangular con in which the judge holds the consideration of involuntary protagonist under the jurisdiction exercised.

special crime improper

Conversely, improper procedural scam, is one in which It is misleading to the counterparty, bringing it to a procedural route, in which the judge is limited to examining the allegations.

Namely, as noted by the SSTS 1980/02, en este caso el procedural fraud and deception fall on the opposing party and not on judge. And it is against this party to which it drives him, within the procedure and usually by false evidence or simulations allanarse, desistir, resign, reach a compromise or in any case, determining a change in procedure will be more favorable solution.

So, the judgment of the Supreme Court of 22 September 1993 He alluded to a new type of crime of procedural fraud and in particular, the call:

By omission

This type of crime arises when certain relationships of trust and mutual loyalty impose a duty to act.

cases: Court rulings on procedural scam

Then, We show some cases in which our courts have convicted for the crime of procedural fraud.

Supreme Court Decision 447/2019, of 14 March 2019:

The crime of procedural fraud, provided for in Articles 248.1 , 250.1,7° of the Penal Code concurs in the case to the state that the complaint filed in court was done by incorporating a description of inveraces facts regarding the claim of the existence of an accident causing a injury, with knowledge of their falsity, by defendants, in order to induce the judge to dictate, detriment of the prosecutor, a resolution that otherwise would not have dictated.

Cuestión aparte es que los hechos podrían haber concurrido idealmente con el delito de denuncia falsa. Esto es inmodificable en esta instancia pues se desconoce si se formuló acusación por este delito y por la exigencia de respeto a la prohibición de lareformatio in peius”.

Supreme Court Decision 551/2018, of 14 November 2018:

El acusado…con la finalidad de obtener un ilícito beneficio económico…consiguió́ que su gerente procediera firmarun certificado de dicha mercantil en el que…se vino a introducir mendazmente por el mismo o por persona a su ruego, mediante manipulación informática, un párrafo por el que dicha mercantil reconocía al acusado el 40% de la propiedad de la finca X…propiedad de dicha mercantilSeguidamente y con la intención de consumar su propósito delictivo, el acusado vino a presentar…ante los Juzgados de Primera Instancia de Alcázar de San Juan una demanda de juicio declarativo ordinario en la que se venía a suplicar la declaración judicial de dicha cotitularidad sobre la finca mencionada en tal porcentaje, a la vez que por otrosí solicitó como medida cautelar la anotación preventiva de dicha demanda en el Registro de la Propiedad, adjuntando a dicha demanda como documento número nueve el mendaz certificado, en apoyo de sus pretensiones. Dicha demanda fue tornada al Juzgado de Primera Instancia n°2, incoándose el juicio ordinario 224/2007… y se vino a adoptar dicha medida cautelar, que tras el oportuno recurso vino a ser confirmada en grado de apelación mediante auto dictado por esta misma Sala con fecha 28 October 2.010, resoluciones ambas en las que se tomó en principal consideración el contenido falaz de tal certificado. Finally, dicho juicio ordinario quedo en suspenso por prejudicialidad penal a consecuencia de estas actuaciones…”.

So, “lejos de admitir solo que había conseguido un documento en el que se le reconocía un 40% de la titularidad dominical de la finca de la mercantil mediante procedimiento falsario y mendaz optó por añadir a esta acción un reconocimiento judicial del documento para poder con la sentencia acceder al registro de la propiedad mediante el reconocimiento judicial del documentoEllo le llevó…a dar ese paso más a ese acto falsario, cuando engañar al juez con el mismo, y los documentos adicionalesa fin de poder conseguir una resolución judicial favorable del reconocimiento judicial del documento falsario, aunque la decisión judicial de la anotación se dio como consecuencia del engaño motivado por el carácter instrumental del documento para la comisión del crime of procedural fraud, el cual debe entenderse con el carácter de consumado…”.

 Consult your case now 

Leave a Reply

Language


Set as default language
 Edit Translation


Subscribe to receive a book PDF


Just for signing up receive via email the link to download the book "How to change lawyers" en format digital.
Sign up here

Sígueme en Twitter



Subscribe me

* This field is required