Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 97

Summary: - The offence of counterfeiting banknotes. Article 263 of the Penal Code. Constituted through imitation or forgery. Their nature. The challenged judgment need not expressly and separately address the existence of the elements of the offence. Limit thereof. - The offence of circulating imitated or forged paper currency. Article 264 of the Penal Code. Its establishment and sufficiency. - Criminal intent in the offence of circulating imitated or forged paper currency is the direction of the perpetrator’s will towards dealing in the paper currency while knowing of its imitation or forgery. Its assessment is a matter of fact. Limit thereof. The challenged judgment need not address it expressly and separately. A challenge on that basis: incorrect. Rule: The offence of counterfeiting banknotes provided for in Article 263 of the Penal Code is constituted either through imitation, by making a note resembling genuine banknotes, or through forgery, by introducing a change to a genuine banknote, whatever that change may be, with intent to use the imitated or forged note in circulation. The judgment need not expressly and separately address the existence of the elements of the offence of counterfeiting banknotes—including the accused’s knowledge of the imitation—provided that the facts, as recited by it, indicate the existence of those elements and that knowledge. Determining that the accused knew of the imitation is a matter reserved to the trial court, which independently infers it from the facts and elements presented before it. The offence of circulating imitated or forged paper currency provided for in Article 264 of the Penal Code is constituted whenever the perpetrator puts the imitated or forged currency into dealings by any method whatsoever. Dealing in a single currency note suffices for circulation, and there is no distinction between a person circulating currency for the first time and a person circulating currency previously circulated. Circulation is complete once the currency is accepted in dealings. Circulation is punishable regardless of the number of notes put into dealings, and circulation is a felony independent of imitation or forgery. Criminal intent in this offence is established when the perpetrator’s will is directed towards dealing in paper currency while knowing of its imitation or forgery. The judgment need not expressly and separately address this intent; it is sufficient that the facts and circumstances it recites indicate its existence. Determining that the accused knew of the imitation or forgery is within the trial court’s jurisdiction, which independently infers it from the facts and elements presented before it. What the judgment stated in setting out the facts of the case and detailing the substance and import of the evidence on which it based its ruling, in the manner previously stated, is sufficient and reasonable in demonstrating the existence of the elements of the offences of imitating paper currency and circulating it in respect of the first appellant, and the existence of criminal intent in the offence of circulation in respect of the second appellant. Accordingly, all the contentions raised by each appellant in this regard are incorrect.