“NEGLIGENCE IS NOT INTENTIONAL”

Neglect to investigate beforehand the list to be signed in this case does not constitute an intentional act, while intentionalism is the main element of the embezzlement. The Prosecutor’s appeal against the decision regarding the subsidiary accusations based on Article 6 paragraph (2) of Law No. 1 Drt. 1951 should not have been accepted by the High Court because the District Court’s decision was a “acquitted of the charges” because the intention to possess the goods could not be proven by the District Court.

Supreme Court Decision No. 58 K/Kr/1974 dated February 4, 1976

Regards,

Fredrik J. Pinakunary