Cassations Nos. 785 and 786 of 2022
Issued on 26/07/2022 (Penal)
Panel: Presided over by Mr. Judge Ahmed Abdullah Al-Mulla, Chief Judge of the Circuit, with Messrs. Judges Muhammad Ahmed Abdel Qader and Al-Tayeb Abdel Ghafour Abdel Wahhab as members.
1- The perpetration of the offence of falsely pretending to hold a position hinges on fraudulent and deceptive acts and external manifestations calculated to engender a belief in the identity of the perpetrator as the legitimate holder of the position he assumes.
2- Mere impersonation of an employee does not rise to the level of interference in the job, as such interference necessitates affirmative actions.
3- The contested ruling is deemed flawed for convicting the appellants of the crime of impersonating a public position solely on the basis of witness statements in the prosecution’s investigations and the complainant's assertions in the evidence report. Its deficiency lies in the absence of a clear explication of the content of these statements, failing to delineate the extent to which the requisite elements of the crime are manifested.
(1, 2) Offences: “Crimes Related to Public Office - Falsely pretending to hold a position and capacity.” Judgment: “Causation Defects - Deficiencies in Reasoning.”
(1) Falsely pretending to hold a capacity of a capacity without undertaking any of its duties does not constitute interference in the job itself. The requisite for such interference involves the execution of affirmative actions to commit the encroachment intended by the legislator. Article 299 of the Law of Crimes and Penalties.
(2) The contested ruling convicted the appellants of the crime of falsely pretending to hold a position in the public service based on statements in the prosecution’s investigations and the complainant’s statements in the evidence report. However, it failed to articulate the content of those statements to elucidate the extent to which the elements of the crime are present. Deficiencies in reasoning necessitating its reversal.
1- It is prescribed, pursuant to the stipulations of Article 299 of the Law on Crimes and Penalties, that falsely pretending to hold a position in the public service without the performance of any associated duties is not considered interference unless accompanied by an act deemed encroachment, which involves the use of fraud and external manifestations calculated to engender a belief in the identity of the perpetrator as the legitimate holder of the position he assumes. Additionally, merely impersonating the capacity of an employee, without affirmative actions that constitute an encroachment, does not qualify as interference in the job, as clarified by this article.
2- Given this context, the appealed ruling, confirmed by the contested ruling, convicted the appellants for impersonating a public position by claiming to be court employees. The ruling stated, “Whereas the accusation attributed to the accused persons is definitively proven to convict them, based on the statements of witnesses in the Public Prosecution’s investigations and the statements of the complainant in the report of evidence and the investigations of the Public Prosecution.” However, it failed to elucidate the content of these statements, preventing a deduction regarding the presence of elements of the crime. This impedes the court's ability to exercise proper oversight in applying the law to the incident, which renders the ruling to be considered as containing deficiencies in reasoning. Hence, the ruling necessitates reversal and remand without further examination of the remaining grounds for cassation.
The Court,
Whereas in the facts, as apparent pursuant to the perusal of the contested ruling and other documents, the Public Prosecution accused the appellants that on 22/2/2022 in the district of .......: -
they impersonated a public position by falsely claiming to be employees of....., as detailed in the investigations.
The Public Prosecution sought their punishment under Article 299/2 of Federal Decree Law No. 31 of 2021, which promulgates the Crimes and Penalties Law.
In a session held on 28/4/2022, the court of first instance, in the presence of the accused, ruled to imprison each of them for six months for the charges against them, while preserving the rights of the civil plaintiff.
The convicts and the civil plaintiff lodged appeals with Appeals Nos. 398, 401, 405/2022.
In a session dated 29/6/2022, the Court of Appeal, in the presence of the appellants, accepted appeals Nos. 398 and 401/2022 in form, and on the merits, modified the prison sentence to one month for the charges against them, ruled the inadmissibility of appeal No. 405/2022.
The appellants contested this ruling by filing the present two appeals in cassation against it. The Public Prosecution submitted a memorandum requesting the dismissal of both cassations.
Whereas the appellants' objections to the contested ruling include allegations of violation of the law, error in its application, flaws in inference, deficiencies in reasoning, and breach of the right of defence. They contend that the ruling convicted them despite their denial, the absence of elements of the crime, and without adequate proof or clarification on whether they assumed public office, interfered in it, or carried out any of its actions and requirements. These perceived deficiencies render the ruling defective and warrant its reversal.
Whereas this objection holds merits, since it is is prescribed, pursuant to the stipulations of Article 299 of the Law on Crimes and Penalties, that “whoever falsely pretends to hold a position in the public service shall be punished with imprisonment for a period not exceeding five years. The same penalty shall be imposed on whoever interferes in a public position or service or performs any of its functions or requirements without being competent or assigned to undertake the same in order to achieve an illegal purpose or to obtain for himself or for others an advantage of any kind.” This signifies that falsely pretending to hold a position in the public service without the performance of any associated duties is not considered interference unless accompanied by an act deemed encroachment, which involves the use of fraud and external manifestations calculated to engender a belief in the identity of the perpetrator as the legitimate holder of the position he assumes.
Additionally, merely impersonating the capacity of an employee, without affirmative actions that constitute an encroachment, does not qualify as interference in the job, as clarified by this article.
Given this context, the appealed ruling, confirmed by the contested ruling, convicted the appellants for falsely pretending to hold a position in the public service by claiming to be court employees. The ruling stated, “Whereas the accusation attributed to the accused persons is definitively proven to convict them, based on the statements of witnesses in the Public Prosecution’s investigations and the statements of the complainant in the report of evidence and the investigations of the Public Prosecution.” However, it failed to elucidate the content of these statements, preventing a deduction regarding the presence of elements of the crime. This impedes the court's ability to exercise proper oversight in applying the law to the incident, which renders the ruling to be considered as containing deficiencies in reasoning. Hence, the ruling necessitates reversal and remand without further examination of the remaining grounds for cassation.

* * *