Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 53

Summary: - The challenged judgment’s application of mitigating circumstances by ordering abstention from pronouncing punishment against the appellant has no effect on ancillary or supplementary penalties, including the proportional fine prescribed for appropriation of public funds. The condition: its non-application of Article 20/2 of Law 1 of 1993 concerning the Protection of Public Funds. - Repayment of the amount appropriated has no effect on imposing the fine. The reason: repayment affects the penalty of restitution. Rule: It is established that the mitigating circumstances applied by the challenged judgment when it decided to abstain from pronouncing punishment against the appellant do not, in principle, affect ancillary supplementary penalties, including the proportional fine prescribed for appropriation of public funds by Article 16 of Law No. 1 of 1993 concerning the Protection of Public Funds, so long as the court did not apply the second paragraph of Article 20 of the same Law. Accordingly, the challenged judgment’s imposition of the amount of the fine awarded against the appellant is correct in law. The appellant’s repayment of the amount appropriated has no effect on imposing that penalty, since that effect relates to the penalty of restitution of the appropriated funds, prescribed by the aforementioned article. The court does not impose that penalty if the accused returns the value of the funds he appropriated to the owning entity. Accordingly, the appellant’s complaint against the judgment in this regard is incorrect.