opinions

The crime of breach of trust

Article (404) of the Federal Penal Code stipulates that:

“Whoever embezzles, uses, or squanders sums, bonds, or any other movable money, to the detriment of those who have the right over it, when it was delivered to him as a deposit or lease, shall be punished with imprisonment or a fine … until the end of the article.”

It is clear from this definition stipulated in the text of Article No. (404) of the Federal Penal Code that it is the features of a crime of treason, referring to things that have a movable material character, and after that they commit harm to their owners or owners who take possession of them, or harm to those who have the right to them, and in all cases The money must be owned by someone other than the accused.

The crime of breach of trust is consistent with theft and fraud in that its object is material of value that can be owned, possessed and transferred from one place to another, without causing damage to it, and does not come out of the circle of dealing, whether by nature or by law.

One of the most important conditions for breach of trust is that the money is owned by someone other than the accused, since this crime is an assault on the right of ownership, and this assault is not attributed to the accused, unless it is proven that the money that was invested on him is owned by another person, so the owner’s disposition of his money is not considered an assault on him, but rather the use of right on the money.

And he completed the text of Article (404) of the Penal Code regarding the necessity of handing over the thing to the accused, saying: “Whenever it was delivered to him as a deposit, lease, mortgage, loan for use, or agency.”

The importance of surrendering in this crime is that the act you are doing is betraying trust in something owned by others and seizing it, and here lies the clear difference in surrendering in each of the theft, fraud and breach of trust crime. Fraud, and it must be available in breach of trust.

It is not sufficient for the crime to be committed that the basis of the crime is a movable material property owned by someone other than the accused, and it was handed over to him conveying the incomplete possession. Rather, the delivery must have taken place on the basis of a trust contract.

And that embezzlement in breach of trust differs from that in the crime of theft in that theft robs possession of money with its material and moral pillars, but in breach of trust he receives the thing based on a trust contract, and possession of the money is incomplete or temporary.

It is well known that breach of trust is a temporary crime, which takes place as soon as the money is embezzled or squandered, because it is not a continuous or renewable crime, as long as the crime of breach of trust is embodied once there is a change in the intention of possession and turns it into an intention to possess.

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