Facts
Parties:
Appellant: [X.Y.] , represented by Advocate Daniel Ordás
Respondent: Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Basel-Landschaft
Subject:
Fraud, procedural fraud, appeal against the judgment of the Cantonal Court of Basel-Landschaft, Civil and Criminal Law Division, of April 29, 2008
Facts:
The Cantonal Court of Basel-Landschaft convicted [X.Y.] on April 29, 2008, inter alia, of commercial fraud, forgery of documents, and procedural fraud to a prison sentence of 4 years and a fine of CHF 100.--. Furthermore, it ordered the destruction of various seized objects. [X.Y.] filed an appeal, requesting the partial overturning of the judgment, in particular acquittal in certain charges and the return of certain seized objects.
Considerations
The appeal was filed within the deadline, so it is generally admissible. To the extent that the appellant requests the finding of a violation of his claims for legal hearing and protection against arbitrariness, the appeal cannot be admitted due to lack of interest in the finding.
The lower court found the appellant guilty of fraud because he had deceived the representative of the landlord by making false statements on a rental application form. The appellant argued that the manager could have verified the false statements without particular effort. The Federal Supreme Court found that the lies of the appellant did not indicate particular deceitfulness and that the manager could have verified the statements in a reasonable manner. Therefore, the fraud offense was not fulfilled, and the appeal was well-founded to that extent.
The lower court also found the appellant guilty of attempted procedural fraud and forgery of documents. The appellant argued that the evaluation of evidence by the lower court was arbitrary and violated the principle "in dubio pro reo". The Federal Supreme Court found that the evaluation of evidence by the lower court was not arbitrary and…