Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 41

Summary: - The felony of appropriation of public funds is established whenever a public official, employee, or worker unlawfully appropriates property belonging to the State, a public authority or institution, or a company or establishment in whose capital the State or a public authority or institution holds a share of not less than 25%. It is not necessary that the official work for the entity whose property he appropriated, irrespective of the competence enabling him to have access to the property appropriated. - Criminal intent in the crime of appropriation of public funds. Its establishment. Express and separate discussion thereof in the judgment is unnecessary. Sufficiency of the facts and circumstances stated therein indicating its existence. Rule: The elements of the felony of appropriation prescribed in Article Ten of Law No. (1) of 1993 concerning the Protection of Public Funds are established whenever a public official, employee, or worker unlawfully appropriates property belonging to the State, a public authority or institution, or a company or establishment in whose capital the State or a public authority or institution holds a share of not less than 25%, even if the official does not work for the entity whose property he appropriated, irrespective of the competence enabling him to have access to the property appropriated. Criminal intent in this crime is established where the perpetrator’s will is directed towards appropriating the property with the intention of owning it and depriving its owner of it. The judgment need not expressly and separately discuss the existence of this element; it suffices that the facts and circumstances it states indicate its existence. That being so, the challenged judgment shows that the appellant is a public official, “a serviceman at the Ministry of Defence,” who unlawfully appropriated sums belonging to the Manpower and Government Restructuring Programme affiliated with the Civil Service Commission—which are public funds—in the manner stated by the judgment in its account of the incident. This act by the appellant was intended to retain those funds exclusively and unlawfully deprive their owning entity of them, thereby establishing criminal intent in both its general and specific aspects of will, knowledge, and intent to own. This establishes the material and mental elements of the crime of unlawful appropriation of public funds, and the complaint that the appellant lacked criminal intent is unfounded.