The Federal Supreme Court upheld a ruling by a court of first instance to punish a company official with a fine of 50,000 dirhams to leave him with a third-party job and a fine of 3,000 dirhams to help him stay in violation of residency.
In the details, the Public Prosecution referred the official in a facility to a criminal trial, on the charge of leaving his employment with third parties without complying with the conditions and conditions prescribed for the transfer of the bail, and helping him to stay in the state illegally by not changing his position or leaving the state within the specified period or To pay the fine prescribed by law, to be punished in accordance with the provisions of the Aliens Entry and Residence Act.
The Court of First Instance ordered the defendant to be fined 50,000 dirhams for the first charge and 3,000 dirhams for the second charge and charged him with fees. The Court of Appeal then amended the sentence imposed on him, and only punished the accused with a fine of 50,000 dirhams for the two charges assigned to him for association. To the judgment before the Federal Supreme Court.
In its appeal, the Public Prosecutor's Office stated that "the referee erred in the application of the law when the accused punished one of the charges assigned to him as connected, since there was no connection between the charges and that both arose out of an independent act and for a different purpose, Or a single criminal activity, in which case the judgment is in breach of the law to the contrary.
The Federal Supreme Court upheld the appeal of the Public Prosecutor's Office, explaining in its reasoning that the link between the indivisible charges in articles 87 and 88 of the Penal Code is that these crimes are the result of a single criminal act or that they were organized by a single criminal scheme , Which would be complementary to each other, so that they would all be a criminal unit for a single purpose. It was also decided that there was no link between crimes committed for different purposes and that there was no link between them to be fragmented and separate, as each crime could be independent without obligation Do other traction Im, it is in this case must remain a crime for each entity.
The court explained that the charge of leaving the sponsored person working for others is not related to the crime of staying in the state, since there is no criminal activity between them, This consideration has served one sentence for both charges, and I am working on the rules of association between them, even though they are not connected, which is the ruling that has violated the law, which must be revoked in respect of the penalty imposed.