Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 44

Summary: - The crime of forgery of official documents is established by the mere deliberate alteration of the truth in a document by one of the means prescribed by law, where the alteration is capable of creating the belief that it accords with the truth. Alteration of the truth by the forger’s own hand is not a condition for punishment. The reason therefor. - Criminal intent in forgery is established by deliberately altering the truth in an official document in a manner capable of causing harm, with the intention of using it for the purpose for which the truth was altered. Assessment of its existence or absence is a matter of fact. Express and separate discussion in the judgment of each element of forgery is unnecessary. The condition therefor. - Complicity in forgery is established where the accomplice agrees with the perpetrator, incites him to commit forgery, or assists him by any means in the acts preparing the crime. Criminal intent exists where the accomplice knows that the perpetrator will commit forgery on the basis of that agreement, incitement, or assistance. Its commission is usually without external manifestations or tangible material acts. - Express and separate discussion in the judgment of each element of forgery is unnecessary. The condition therefor. Rule: It is established in the case law of the Court of Cassation that the crime of forgery of official documents prescribed in Articles 257 and 259 of the Penal Code is established by the mere deliberate alteration of the truth in a document by one of the means prescribed by law, where the alteration is capable of creating the belief that it accords with the truth, and with the intention of using the document for the purpose for which it was altered, whenever the document after alteration is capable of creating the belief that it accords with the truth. Punishment for forgery does not require that the truth be altered by the forger’s own hand, to preserve the legislature’s intention that punishment should not be escaped by someone who commits forgery through another. Criminal intent in forgery is established by deliberately altering the truth in a document in a manner capable of causing harm, with the intention of using the document for the purpose for which, for which, the truth therein was altered. Assessment, from the circumstances of the case, of the existence or absence of criminal intent is a factual matter determined by the trial court without review. The judgment need not expressly and separately discuss each element of forgery, so long as its reasons contain what indicates its existence. It is also established that complicity in this crime is established where the accomplice agrees with the perpetrator, incites him to commit forgery, or assists him by any means in the acts preparing the crime. Criminal intent exists where the accomplice knows that the perpetrator will commit forgery on the basis of that agreement, incitement, or assistance. Complicity in forgery is usually accomplished without external manifestations or tangible material acts from which it can be inferred. Accordingly, to establish it, it suffices that the court believes it occurred based on the circumstances and particulars of the case, and that its belief is sound and justified by the facts stated in the judgment. A valid conviction for this crime likewise does not require express and separate discussion of each element of the crime, so long as the judgment states facts indicating it. What the first-instance judgment, whose grounds were adopted, supplemented, and amended by the challenged judgment, stated in setting out the facts of the case and the evidence of guilt—as previously explained—establishes against the appellant all the legal elements of complicity in forgery of official documents, including criminal intent, and justifies the court’s belief that he committed it. Accordingly, what the appellant raises in this regard is incorrect.