It 's not configurable in the embezzlement case of episodic and occasional use of car service for purposes other than institutional ones.
The Supreme Court adopts balanced interpretation in terms of embezzlement in the case of improper use of car service.
The Court considers that it constitutes the crime of embezzlement of use (Article 314, paragraph 2, cp) in the event of momentary use of a motor vehicle office, although for the purpose, real or imaginary, do not correspond to those institutional, as to whether this was an incidental use and occasional, caratterizzatosi, in terms of magnitude (distance) and duration of use, in terms of actual "ownership" of the car service, which could make a real and significant economic damage on the public (in terms of fuel energy use and working of the drivers involved driving) or to affect its normal functional activity [in terms of recent, Supreme Court, Section VI, 10 January 2007, foreigners].
The fact, if anything, can be seen only in accounting or disciplinary action.
rights in accordance with this principle, the court rejected the claim of legitimacy of the public prosecutor against the decision of the Gup said he had not pursued against the commissioners of a municipality, held accountable for the crime of embezzlement of use, the importance of the number of episodes of content absolutely improper usage of the car, which was also always remained in the functional availability of the administration.
(24/02/2011 Criminal Judgement Supreme Court, No 7177)
Source: IPSOA
0 comments:
Post a Comment