Facts
The appellant, [F.], was in charge of directing the audiovisual laboratory of the University of Geneva. In the exercise of this function, he ensured that [S.] obtained significant orders for audiovisual equipment. In return, [S.] sponsored academic activities organized by [F.] for a total of more than 350,000 francs between 1981 and 1987. In 1987, [F.] discovered that [S.] had used forged purchase orders to obtain bank loans. [F.] demanded that [S.] hand over the false documents, which he then destroyed. Subsequently, [F.] was repeatedly informed of new attempts at fraud by [S.], but he did not report them to the authorities. The Correctional Court of Yverdon convicted [F.] of complicity in fraud and forgery, as well as acceptance of an advantage. The Cantonal Court of Cassation partially annulled this decision, considering that [F.] had not been aware of certain acts of [S.] after April 1, 1987.Considerations
1. On Complicity by Omission: The DFC considers that [F.] was not in a position of guarantor that would have obliged him to report S.'s acts to the authorities. Although [F.] was aware of the offenses, his omission to report them cannot constitute complicity, as he did not have a legal obligation to act. The mere fact of being a public official and having knowledge of an offense is not sufficient to create such an…