Absence of payment intention and incorrect indication of place of payment in a promissory note not constituting forgery of securities

Facts

In this case, X. was convicted at first instance for fraud and was convicted on appeal for forgery of securities. X. filed a criminal appeal with the DFC against this conviction for forgery of securities. The relevant facts are as follows: X. had sublet an apartment belonging to A.A. In 2009, A.A. summoned X. to issue him a promissory note corresponding to the amount owed for the sublease. X. sent A.A. a promissory note dated May 28, 2010, in which he undertook to pay A.A. the sum of 100,000 francs by the due date of June 30, 2010. A protest for non-payment was drawn up on July 1, 2010.

Considerations

The DFC upheld X.'s appeal and considered that the disputed promissory note did not constitute a security within the meaning of Art. 110 para. 4 and Art. 251 no. 1 SCC, and that the conviction for forgery of securities was therefore excluded.

First, the DFC noted that the promissory note contains the required designation and the appellant's commitment to pay a certain amount on a certain date, which makes it a valid promissory note within the meaning of Art. 1096 et seq. CO, even if the indicated place of performance is incorrect.

Furthermore, the DFC considered that the previous authority had not found that the commitment made by X. in the promissory note was false, but only that X. did not intend to pay the acknowledged debt by the due date. However, in the absence of particular circumstances, the mere existence of a commitment cannot be inferred…