{"id":100457,"date":"2025-10-11T11:21:55","date_gmt":"2025-10-11T10:21:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/?p=100457"},"modified":"2025-10-11T12:28:09","modified_gmt":"2025-10-11T11:28:09","slug":"can-i-be-convicted-of-it-forgery-if-i-did-not-mean-to-harm-anyone","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/kan-ik-veroordeeld-worden-voor-valsheid-in-informatica-als-ik-niemand-wilde-benadelen\/","title":{"rendered":"Can I be convicted of IT forgery f I did not mean to harm anyone?"},"content":{"rendered":"

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 <\/em>that harm may be caused to another person is sufficient grounds for a conviction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The facts: a disputed sale in Hungary<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In this case, the former directors of a company were prosecuted for forgery, use of false documents and IT forgery<\/a>. 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They sent documents and emails to a Hungarian lawyer falsely claiming to still be the authorized directors<\/sup>. Their goal was to register the sale and collect the proceeds themselves<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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<\/sup><\/sup><\/sup>. Thus, according to them, there was no crime.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The decision of the court of appeal and the Court of Cassation<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

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<\/sup>. The court stated:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\"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.\"<\/sup><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The Court of Cassation <\/strong>confirmed this reasoning and dismissed the cassation appeal in a ruling<\/a> of 30 September 2025. The Court clarified the legal principles that apply.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Legal analysis and interpretation<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

This case illustrates a crucial principle in Belgian criminal law regarding forgery crimes: the distinction between fraudulent intent and intent to harm.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The law, specifically articles 193 and 210bis Criminal Code<\/a>, 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n