Exceeding the statutorily defined scope of business does not fulfill the criminal offense of violating conditions associated with the authorization

Facts

The appellant [S.] was the President of the Bank X's Board of Directors Committee. He was accused of having approved numerous credit transactions between April 1988 and August 1991 that were outside the scope of business described in the bank's articles of association. This was alleged to have constituted multiple violations of Art. 46 para. 1 lit. c BankA. The District Court acquitted [S.], but the High Court convicted him of multiple violations of Art. 46 para. 1 lit. c BankA. [S.] then filed a federal nullity appeal.

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court concluded that exceeding the statutorily defined scope of business does not fulfill the criminal offense of violating "conditions associated with the authorization" within the meaning of Art. 46 para. 1 lit. c BankA. The historical, grammatical, systematic and teleological interpretation provides more reasons…