The intention of misguidance in the case of contract performance

The High Court of Cassation and Justice has ruled that this is a case of fraud offense provided for under art. 215 para. (3) of the Penal Code, given that the defendant divested the shares of the debtor company without notifying the civil creditor of the assignment. The debtor issued several promissory notes and as an effect, these have been refused for lack of funds. The High Court stated that this shows the defendant’s intention to mislead it on the civil contract execution, in order to bring prejudice, by not paying for goods of which promissory notes have been issued and, as such, rejected at payment. (Decision no. 3274 dated October 11, 2012 passed in appeal at the Criminal Division of the High Court of Cassation and Justice concerning the offenses of fraud)

Dan Alexandru NEGRU


Related posts