Facts
The appellant, [S.] , was convicted by the Federal Criminal Court of complicity in forging documents in office and complicity in disloyal exercise of public office. The conviction is based on the sale of a property, in which the appellant acted as a real estate agent and received a commission of CHF 107,600.-- from the Swiss Accident Insurance Institution (SUVA), although he had not made any brokerage efforts.
The lower court concluded that the appellant had submitted a false invoice to support the forgery of documents in office committed by the two officials [V.] and [W.] . The appellant complained that this finding of fact was arbitrary and accused the lower court of violating the principle of "in dubio pro reo".
The Federal Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the appellant's conviction. It stated that the lower court had carefully evaluated the circumstances relevant to the sentencing and considered all factors relevant to sentencing.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined the question of whether the appellant was guilty of complicity in forging documents in office. It stated that the accomplice must know or expect to support a specific type of offense and must also want to or at least accept it. The Federal Court concluded that the lower court could, without violating federal law, conclude that the appellant had expected and accepted that the forgery of documents committed by the two officials [V.] and [W.] would be supported by submitting the false invoice.
The Federal Court also examined the sentencing and stated that the lower court had carefully evaluated the circumstances relevant to the sentencing and considered all factors relevant to sentencing. It concluded that the imposed fine of 160 daily…