What is meant by ‘economic fraud’? The concept of economic fraud should be understood as nothing else than prohibited acts that harm or threaten goods related to the sphere of economic life. Economic fraud consists primarily in violating the trust related to the position of the perpetrator of a prohibited act or an institution of economic life, which may result in the loss of confidence in the economic system and its basic functions. 

What are the specific forms of economic fraud?

The basic forms of economic fraud include, first of all:

• computer fraud (Article 287 (1) of the Penal Code) – it is punishable by 3 months to 5 years imprisonment, but when the offense is less serious, the perpetrator may be fined with restriction of liberty.
• fraud in a managerial position (Article 296a of the Criminal Code) – it is punishable by imprisonment from 6 months to 8 years, although if the act is less serious, the perpetrator may be fined, restricted or deprived of liberty up to 2 years.
• credit fraud (Article 297 (1) of the Criminal Code) – punishable by 3 months to 5 years imprisonment.
• insurance fraud (Article 298 (1) of the Penal Code) – is punishable by imprisonment from 3 months to 5 years imprisonment.
• capital fraud (Article 311 of the Penal Code) – punishable by imprisonment of up to 3 years.
• tax fraud (Article 56 of the Fiscal Penal Code)

Application for compensation for damage related to economic fraud

First of all, it should be remembered that the obligation to redress the damage cannot be adjudicated in every situation. Such a situation includes, inter alia, the moment when the claim arising from the commission of economic fraud is the subject of other proceedings, or when such a claim has already been legally adjudicated. It should also be remembered that the most important claim of the aggrieved party will be to redress the damage that has been caused to him because he has simply been cheated. An application for compensation for such damage should be submitted pursuant to Art. 49a of the code of criminal procedure.

Who can be held criminally responsible for economic fraud?

In connection with economic fraud, anyone who:

• defrauds VAT
• extorting loans
• extort loans
• frauds insurance-related benefits
• knowingly misleads bank employees
• causes hindering or preventing public tenders
• counterfeits means of payment
• counterfeits securities
• does not keep documentation related to the conducted business activity

What is meant by “minor fraud”?

Well, the concept of “minor fraud” is not a more specific term, and it is determined by various objective elements, which may include, for example, the size of the damage caused, the way the perpetrator acts during the offense, as well as the type of goods infringed by the perpetrator.

What conditions must be met for a prohibited act to be called an economic fraud?

For a crime to be called an economic fraud, the perpetrator of the act must:

• • • mislead the aggrieved party
    • exploit the aggrieved party’s mistakes
    • or exploit the inability of the aggrieved party to adequately and rationally reason the actions taken

The issue of deception consists in causing the aggrieved party who disposes of his property to misjudge the reality. In a situation where the perpetrator of the prohibited act successfully leads the aggrieved party to disadvantageous disposal of the property, using one of the three above-mentioned methods, this act may be treated as an economic fraud. It is irrelevant to the court whether such misrepresentation was made orally or in writing, as it is treated in the same way. It should also be remembered that criminals committing such acts often claim that they suffered from mental disorders at the time of committing the act, and this argument is in some cases difficult to challenge.

Recognition of the victim’s error refers to a situation in which the perpetrator of the act does not mislead the victim, but being aware that the aggrieved party has a false belief about the reality, he does not consciously disprove him from the error, because his intention is to lead the victim to an unfavorable disposition of his property.

On the other hand, when it comes to the intention to exploit the victim’s inability to properly and rationally reason the action taken, it occurs in each case when the perpetrator of the act leads the aggrieved party to unfavorably dispose of his property, who is not able to understand the consequences of his actions. . This may be, for example, due to age, illness or intoxication.