Facts
The appellant X. suffered a traffic accident in 1996 and subsequently received insurance benefits from SUVA, IV, and A. Insurance. The indictment accused him of systematically deceiving doctors and inspectors of the insurers from 1997 onwards with false information about his state of health in order to obtain insurance benefits to which he was not entitled. Alternatively, he had failed to report the improvement in his state of health after the accident, so that benefits were paid to him that he was not entitled to or not in the amount paid out. The Criminal Court and the Cantonal Court of Basel-Landschaft convicted X. of commercial fraud for the period from April 8, 2005 to March 31, 2008, but acquitted him for the period before that. X. filed a criminal complaint against the decision of the Cantonal Court.Considerations
The Federal Court states that fraud by omission is only punishable under the conditions of an unreal omission offense and is therefore only possible by the perpetrator who is subject to a qualified legal duty to act in the sense of a guarantor duty towards the injured party. The behavior of the appellant in connection with SUVA, IV, and A. Insurance is limited to the disregard of statutory and contractual reporting obligations. He should have informed the insurers about the improvement in his state of health, but failed to make such a report and continued to receive the insurance benefits originally rightly awarded to…