Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Vaasan HO 05.06.1984 549/84 AI generated

False document creation without intent to deceive does not constitute continued fraud.

Case Number Vaasan HO 05.06.1984 549/84
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court dismissed the charge of continued fraud against A, who created a false customer slip form in B's name to open a grocery account. A argued that subsequent transactions under B's name were not new forgeries because the initial document was merely a tool for access, not a continuous deception. The court held that without intent to perpetrate further fraud, the act of creating the false document alone does not constitute continued criminal activity.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Laki rikosrikoksista 1984; 10. luku: Väärennysrikokset; The creation of a false document without intent to deceive or continue fraud does not constitute the crime of continued forgery.

Keywords

AI generated
continued fraud false document intent to deceive forgery crime criminal intent

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Laki rikosrikoksista 1984
AI generated
kko-precedent_1995_45
Supreme Court of Finland allows conditional probation for fraud convictions despite prior conditional sentences.
appeal_1980_eastern-finland__369
Court dismissed claim that land sale was sham to transfer ownership jointly despite single name on deed.
appeal_1986_helsinki__2262
Court dismissed appeal against conviction for forging a receipt copy presented as original evidence.
kko-precedent_2003_9
Supreme Court allows prosecution for concealment crime despite victim's initial theft charge only.
appeal_1983_kouvola__968
Court dismisses appeal against conviction for tax fraud and aiding tax evasion in Finnish tax case.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

A oli valmistanut väärän asiakastilisopimusasiakirjan B:n nimiin ja käyttänyt sitä luovuttamalla sen kauppaliikkeeseen ja saanut siten avatuksi siellä päivittäistavarakaupan asiakastilin, jolle hänen ostoksensa oli merkitty. A:n ei katsottu, kuitatessaan asiakastilille tämän jälkeen tekemänsä ostokset B:n nimellä, syyllistyneen uusiin väärennyksiin, koska väärän nimen kirjoittaminen ei ollut ollut tarpeen ostosten saamiseksi.

Kuittaamisia ei näin ollen luettu A:n syyksi jatkettuna rikoksena.

I-jaosto

Lainvoimainen