Document forgery: the document, its use and intent

A document often has multiple creators and users

An invoice can be entered by one employee, checked by another and submitted by a director. A digital form can automatically copy data from an earlier file. As a result, the name under a document does not indicate in every case who performed each action. Nor does a shared process make responsibility impossible. The first step is to follow the document through the organization or between people: from source data to final recipient.

Our analysis uses a document chain with four moments: drafting, changing, approving and using. Set the version, responsible and available registration at any time. This prevents an error in a source file from being automatically attributed to the last user or from a deliberate change disappearing behind the statement that everyone had access. From that chain, the lawyer can assess which legal variant is blamed and which evidence supports the personal contribution and science.

Not every incorrect piece of text is the same piece of writing

In Article 225 of the Criminal Code, the purpose of the document to serve as proof of any fact plays an important role. An invoice or wage statement can have a clear evidentiary function, but the precise context remains relevant. A personal draft note, a draft and a final submitted form do not automatically have the same meaning. Digital recording may also fall within the legal assessment; paper is not a general condition. (article 225 Sr)

Ask what the document was intended to demonstrate and for whom. Did it concern work performed, identity, income, a payment or another event? An error in a field that is relevant to the evidence function requires a different assessment than an innocent formatting deviation. The defense should not just shout that it was a draft, but show how the draft was marked and handled. If a document designated as draft has actually been used as definitive evidence, that act must be examined separately.

What exactly is counterfeit or counterfeit?

A document may contain falsehoods even though the sender is genuine. An existing document may also have been changed or a signature or origin may be misrepresented. It is therefore not just about an imitated appearance. Let the specific untruth be pointed out: which performance was not performed, which date would be incorrect or which authority was lacking? A file that only talks about suspicious administration must connect that general qualification with relevant data.

Compare the disputed passage with the original source. Consider delivery data, work registrations or an approved assignment, insofar as they are lawfully available. A difference can support intent, but can also require technical or administrative explanation. That explanation must be verifiable. A standard answer that the system did this automatically is insufficient if it is not investigated which system, which input and which settings played a role. Search for existing data without adjusting registrations afterwards.

Separate preparation, use and possession

The law distinguishes, among other things, between false formatting or falsification with the intention of using it as genuine, and variants relating to use, delivery or possession. The required intention or knowledge must be tested for the specific variant. Someone who has received a document is not the forger for that reason alone. Someone who did not make it himself may, under certain circumstances, be responsible for a later action. The difference must be visible in the indictment and evidence.

Therefore, not only make an overview of who had access, but of who performed what action. Has anyone edited the content, forwarded a file or offered it to an agency? When did it become known that something might be wrong? A warning after shipment does not automatically prove previous science. An earlier explicit warning may actually be relevant for later use. The lawyer can test knowledge at the relevant time without accepting blanket responsibility for the entire record as a substitute for evidence.

Versions and metadata can explain a difference

With digital documents, the visible page and the origin data are not always the same. A PDF can be an export from a spreadsheet; a scanned document may show a different date than the scan itself. Metadata can provide relevant clues, but cannot prove without interpretation who has changed something substantively. Automatic storage, time zones and shared accounts can play a role. A technical date must therefore be linked to the actual process.

Save original files and shipping notices. Work with a copy for your own overview and note where the original is stored. Do not change file names or content in the source material to clarify the order. A separate inventory is suitable for this. When a technical dispute is at the center, expert assessment can be useful. Then formulate a question about the change track or version, not the general assignment to prove that the document is genuine. Even an expert cannot deduce every human intention from file data.

Function and signature are important, but require context

A director, accountant or employee can be involved in documents through his position. It does not automatically follow that every error can be held criminally attributable to him. Legal entities and possibly actual management have their own legal conditions. A signature or approval can be important proof, especially in connection with instructions and knowledge. The defense must therefore investigate both formal powers and actual methods.

Collect task allocations, access rights, audit agreements and relevant communications from the period under investigation. A current organizational chart may differ from the situation at that time. Also be aware of shared accounts: they may raise a question of identification, but are not an automatic declaration that no one was responsible. A FIOD investigation may involve different people and administrative processes. Ask what action you are accused of and how it was determined. This way, the substantive defense is not replaced by just the job title or the size of the company. (FIOD investigation)

Tax correction and criminal accusation differ

An incorrect declaration or administration can have tax consequences and also be subject to criminal investigation. The General Act on State Taxes contains its own obligations and penalty provisions. Not every tax adjustment proves intent and not every remedial action ends a criminal suspicion. Rules on concurrent sanctions may also be important. Have the tax and criminal routes examined together without treating them as one procedure. (General State Tax Act)

Keep received information requests, assessments, fines and suspect calls separate. The rights and obligations may differ per action. An accountant can help reconstruct data, but does not automatically have the same role and confidentiality as the lawyer. Discuss who communicates with which agency and what information must be provided by law. The aim is that necessary compliance is carefully organized without thoughtless explanations or inappropriate disregard of applicable obligations. A universal instruction to answer everything or remain silent everywhere does not fit in with this.

A correction must remain recognizably a correction

If an error is discovered, correction may be necessary. Do this verifiably and retain the previous version where this is lawful and necessary. Tacitly backdating an improved document can make the situation worse. Clearly explain what has been adjusted, when and on what source the correction is based. Whether a recovery step is legally necessary or sensible in an ongoing investigation must be agreed with the lawyer and the responsible expert.

Moreover, a correction is not automatic recognition of every accusation. She can solve an administrative problem while there remains a difference of opinion about the design or previous science. Conversely, an improvement does not automatically remove any previous criminal act. The value lies in an honest document history. If a third party needs to confirm a correction, they should not be asked to endorse something that is incorrect. Keep actual repair work and the substantive defense visible side by side.

Fictitious example: an invoice template with an incorrect performance

A fictitious employee is using an old invoice template. The description of a previous assignment remains, while the amount for new work is adjusted. It will later be investigated whether the invoice was intended to conceal a service that was not performed. The explanation that a template has been used may be relevant, but does not independently solve the question. The original work, version history, and usage of the invoice should be compared.

A targeted reconstruction contains the job, actual work performed, original files, and shipping information. If someone pointed out the wrong description before sending, that is a fundamentally different matter than discovery afterwards. The lawyer assesses the accusation per act and person. The example shows why an administrative statement is not automatically sufficient, but also why a substantive error should not be labeled as deliberate falsification without investigation. The existing document chain provides starting points for testing that difference.

A version card for the first file meeting

Do not simply place the disputed documents on the table as separate printouts. Use an overview that connects the source, versions and usage moments. Mark missing files and uncertain dates honestly. The following questions help to formulate a specific request or expert question. They are intended for the preparation of legal aid and not for the subsequent reconstruction of documents in a favorable order that is not supported by the sources.

• Document: exact version, content, recipient and stated proof function.
• Inaccuracy: specific passage, change or origin that the Public Prosecution Service disputes.
• Chain: drafting, adapting, approving and using, with person and date.
• Knowledge: instructions and warnings that were known at all relevant times.
• Sources: original files, source records, metadata and shipping details.
• Concurrence: fiscal or contractual procedures and separate deadlines.
• Recovery: recognizable corrections, saved old versions and coordinated communication.