Facts

Parties: Appellant X., Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Aargau, SVA Aargau, A. AG

Court: Federal Supreme Court, Criminal Law Division

Date: August 8, 2016

Facts:

  • X. is accused of defrauding the SVA Aargau and his accident insurance regarding his ability to work from 2000 to December 2011, thereby obtaining unlawful monetary benefits amounting to CHF 697,590.-.
  • In May 2004, X. concluded a health and daily allowance insurance with A. AG, providing false information about his ability to work and his monthly salary.
  • On March 15, 2007, X. transferred CHF 550,000.- to Bank B., providing false information about the beneficial owner.
  • The District Court of Bremgarten convicted X. on December 4, 2014, of commercial fraud and forgery, sentencing him to four years' imprisonment.
  • The Higher Court of the Canton of Aargau discontinued the proceedings regarding fraudulent acts committed before September 28, 2001, and otherwise dismissed the appeal.
  • X. files an appeal in criminal matters and requests the annulment of the Higher Court's judgment.

Considerations

The judgment must exhaustively dispose of the subject matter of the proceedings as defined by the admitted indictment. This is assessed by comparing the operative part of the judgment with the admitted indictment. If the conviction does not exhaust the indictment, a discontinuance or acquittal must be ordered.

In case of concurrent offenses, no acquittal is granted if not all offenses result in a conviction. The judgment on one and the same offense can only uniformly result in conviction or acquittal. If the court merely assesses the facts of the indictment legally differently than the prosecuting authority and fully addresses them, no acquittal is granted.

However, if not all offenses are convicted that, according to the opinion of the prosecuting authority, are alleged to have been committed in multiple offenses, an acquittal must be granted to exhaustively address the indictment. This also applies if the court assesses the relationship of concurrence differently than…