Can I be convicted of IT forgery f I did not mean to harm anyone?

Yes, you can absolutely be convicted of IT forgery even if you did not intend to harm anyone specifically. What counts is fraudulent intent: the intent to gain an undue advantage for yourself or another. The mere possibility that harm may be caused to another person is sufficient grounds for a conviction.

The facts: a disputed sale in Hungary

In this case, the former directors of a company were prosecuted for forgery, use of false documents and IT forgery. The crux of the matter? After their removal as managers, they still pretended to be legal representatives of the company to allow the sale of a property in Hungary, which was still owned by that company.

They sent documents and emails to a Hungarian lawyer falsely claiming to still be the authorized directors. Their goal was to register the sale and collect the proceeds themselves.

The defendants argued that the company's new owner did not consider the Hungarian property important anyway and thus there was no intent to harm. Thus, according to them, there was no crime.

The decision of the court of appeal and the Court of Cassation

The appeals court ruled that the defendants were indeed guilty. They had knowingly assumed a false capacity in order to register a sales contract that they could not validly conclude. The court stated:

"The defendants did indeed act with fraudulent intent to gain an unlawful advantage for themselves when drawing up and using the false documents and committing IT forgery. After all, they would not have been able to register the sale of the property in Hungary if they had not assumed the false identity."

The Court of Cassation confirmed this reasoning and dismissed the cassation appeal in a ruling of 30 September 2025. The Court clarified the legal principles that apply.

Legal analysis and interpretation

This case illustrates a crucial principle in Belgian criminal law regarding forgery crimes: the distinction between fraudulent intent and intent to harm.

The law, specifically articles 193 and 210bis Criminal Code, requires that the perpetrator act with "fraudulent intent or with intent to harm." These are alternative conditions. It is therefore not necessary for both to be met.

• Deceptive intent: This is the intent to obtain an undue advantage for oneself or for another. As soon as the perpetrator intends to obtain an advantage that he would not have obtained had the truth been respected, there is fraudulent intent. In this case, the benefit was clear: collect the proceeds from the sale of the property.
• Intent to harm: This is the intent to harm another. The Court of Cassation clearly states that once fraudulent intent is proven, the court need not examine whether there was also an intent to harm. Thus, the defendants' argument that the new owner wanted to get rid of the property anyway was irrelevant to the question of guilt.

In addition, the Court emphasizes that actual prejudice is not required for a conviction. It is sufficient that a potential prejudice may arise from the falsity. By acting unlawfully in the name of the company, a risk of prejudice clearly arose for the company and its new owners.

What this specifically means

• For (former) business owners and directors: Be extremely careful. Once you are no longer legally allowed to represent a company, any action you take on its behalf is potentially punishable. Even if you believe you are acting in good faith or do not intend to harm anyone, the pursuit of a personal benefit (such as completing a transaction) may be sufficient for a conviction for (IT) forgery.
• For companies and shareholders: This ruling confirms that the law protects you from wrongful acts of former directors. The fact that there is a risk of harm is enough to take legal action. You do not have to wait until the harm has effectively manifested itself.
• For anyone drafting documents: The intent behind modifying or creating a document is of utmost importance. If the goal is to gain an advantage you would not otherwise have, you are on thin ice, even if you think no one will be inconvenienced.

FAQ (frequently asked questions)

What is the difference between fraudulent intent and intent to harm?
Deceptive intent is the intent to gain an undue advantage for yourself or someone else. Intent to harm is the specific intent to cause harm to another. For a conviction for forgery, one of the two is sufficient.

Must there be effective damages for a forgery conviction?
No. The law does not require that actual harm has occurred. The mere possibility that harm may result from the false act is enough for a guilty verdict.

What is IT forgery?
IT forgery is the alteration of legally relevant data in an informatics system with fraudulent intent or intent to harm. In this case, sending an e-mail with false information (claiming to still be a business owner) qualified as IT forgery because the purpose was to deceive the recipient. Read more about computer savvy here.

Conclusion

This ruling is a clear warning: the absence of intent to harm is not a safe haven in Belgium for committing (IT) forgery. As soon as you knowingly distort the truth to obtain an illegal advantage, however small, you risk a criminal conviction.