Facts
The appellant, [A.A.] , was convicted by the High Court of the Canton of Bern of simple traffic rule violation by exceeding the signaled maximum speed limit in a built-up area by 17 km/h and fined CHF 400.--. The appellant is the managing director and owner of [B.A. AG] , in whose name the Maserati is registered, with which the speed limit was exceeded. The appellant denies having driven the Maserati at that time.
The court of first instance established that the appellant is considered the material owner of the Maserati and that various indications suggest his guilt, including the fact that the appellant's wife was sitting in the passenger seat and that a business trip by an employee of [B.A. AG] on this weekend excursion is unlikely.
The appellant argued that his guilt could not be proven and that he was invoking his right to refuse to testify. However, the court of first instance pointed out that the appellant had not convincingly demonstrated that the driver was a person pursuant to Art. 168 CrimPC, and that his submissions were to be regarded as mere assertions of defense.
Considerations
The Federal Court examines whether the court of first instance has arbitrarily established the facts. The court of first instance has established that the appellant is considered the material owner of the Maserati and that various indications suggest his guilt. The appellant has not convincingly demonstrated that the driver was a person pursuant to Art. 168 CrimPC.
The Federal Court has already established in previous judgments that the silence of the accused person can be taken into account in the assessment of the evidence without violating Art. 113 CrimPC. In the present case, the court of first instance was entitled to come to the conclusion, without arbitrariness, that the circle of potential perpetrators named by the appellant was limited to his six employees.
The court of first instance…