Facts
The Federal Court has rendered a judgment in a case where two individuals, X. and Y., associated to commit insurance scams. Y. intentionally caused traffic accidents, while X. financed the purchase of vehicles and participated in the planning of the accidents. Both men were convicted of professional fraud, misleading the justice and serious violation of road traffic rules. X. filed a nullity appeal, contesting his conviction for serious violation of road traffic rules, arguing that he had not personally taken part in driving the vehicle.
The Correctional Court of the Lausanne district found X. guilty of professional fraud and serious violation of road traffic rules, considering that he had adopted the offenses committed by Y. The Criminal Court of Appeal of the Vaud Cantonal Court rejected X.'s appeal and confirmed the judgment under appeal.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined the question of whether a person who has not personally taken part in driving the vehicle can be convicted of an offense under Article 90, Chapter 2, of the Federal Law on Road Traffic (RTA). The Court considered that the concept of co-author is applicable in case of serious violation of road traffic rules, even if the co-author did not take part in driving the vehicle.
The Court rejected X.'s argument that the concept of intellectual co-author does not exist in matters of strict road traffic offenses. The Court considered that co-activity is possible for serious violation of road traffic rules within the meaning of Article 90, Chapter 2, RTA, and that X. could be convicted as co-author of this offense.
The Court also examined the…