Facts
The case concerns a complainant who had acquired an Opel Rekord and later resold it, although he at least suspected that the vehicle had been obtained through a criminal act. The High Court had convicted the complainant of continued receiving of stolen goods.
The complainant argued that he should have been found guilty at most of simple, but not continued, receiving of stolen goods, as he had been acting in good faith when acquiring the first vehicle, the Opel Rekord.
Considerations
The Federal Court states that while the complainant could not be punished for receiving stolen goods in the acquisition of the Opel Rekord due to lack of intent, he nevertheless lacked good faith within the meaning of Art. 714 para. 2 and 933 of the Swiss Civil Code. This is because he could have recognized, with the required diligence, that the previous owner was not entitled to sell the vehicle.
While the so-called "dolus subsequens" - i.e. the subsequent knowledge of the criminal origin - alone is not sufficient for punishment for…