The Federal Supreme Court supported the defendant's defense

Accepting the appeal of a person who signed a check under duress

The court confirmed that the check was signed under threat.

archival

The Federal Supreme Court upheld a defense accused of giving a check without balance, that the complainant forced him to sign, which prompted the court to overturn a judgment condemning and fining him, for not responding to his defense in this regard.

The Public Prosecution had referred the accused to the criminal trial on charges of giving in bad faith a check drawn on a bank, and for which he had no payment in return, demanding that he be punished, in accordance with Article (404/1) of the Federal Penal Code, and Article (643) of Federal Law No. (18). ) of 1993 in the matter of commercial transactions.

The court of first instance in attendance fined the accused 10,000 dirhams for the accusation against him, and obliged him to pay judicial fees. The accused served the verdict, so he appealed by way of cassation, and the Public Prosecution submitted a memorandum of opinion, and requested that the appeal be rejected.

In his appeal, the accused said that “the judgment that convicted him of the crime of giving a check without balance, was flawed, and violated the right of his defense, because the court did not present his defense that he signed the check in question under the influence of moral coercion, threat and lack of will, a defense that the court did not pay attention to despite its substance And it ruled in the case without intending to investigate it or respond to it, which defects the judgment and necessitates its rescission.”

The Federal Supreme Court upheld the appeal, stressing that “the reason or motive for issuing the check has no bearing on the criminal liability of its drawer, but this differs from the necessity that his obligation be issued by a valid will, and free from any defect of consent that nullifies legal actions, such as error. or deception and coercion, which has the effect of arranging criminal responsibility against him.”

She pointed out that "what is proven in the papers is that the accused held the case before my court with a defense that the complainant obtained the check by coercion and threatening to send e-mails bearing clear and explicit terms of threat and imprisonment."

The court added that “the defense of the accused in relation to this case is important and essential, because of the impact it has on determining his criminal responsibility, what the court should have presented to him independently, and to memorize this defense, and to examine its elements to reveal the extent of its sincerity, and to respond to him with what Pay it if you want to put it up.”

She pointed out that “the appeal ruling, and before it the preliminary ruling, withheld this defense and did not talk about it, and if the court was concerned with examining and examining this defense, the opinion in the case may change.

And since that is the case, the judgment is tainted with shortcomings in causation and a breach of the right of defense, which invalidates it and requires it to be set aside.”

Follow our latest local and sports news and the latest political and economic developments via Google news