Supreme Court upholds forgery conviction but imposes no sentence

The Supreme Court upheld a man’s conviction for forgery but imposed no sentence, mbl.is reported. He had signed another man’s name without permission on an application to do business with a car rental company and used it to arrange the transactions.

The Court of Appeal had sentenced him to 30 days in prison, suspended. The Supreme Court said the forgery would not have increased the sentence he received for an earlier extortion conviction if both offences had been considered together.

The case concerned an application the man submitted to the rental company on behalf of a limited liability company on May 10, 2023. The previous day, the company had asked about long-term vehicle rentals and a temporary rental while a long-term agreement was being arranged. In the application, the man named another person as the company’s contact and signed that person’s name in the applicant’s signature field and approval of the terms.

The man argued that he had permission to use the other person’s name and authority to bind the company. He said there had been no deception, noting that the rental agreement was made and both parties fulfilled it. The other person denied giving him permission to sign the application.

A district court had acquitted the man, but the Court of Appeal found the other person’s testimony more credible. It concluded that the application was forged because it had not come from the person whose name it bore, and that the man had knowingly used it to establish rental transactions.

The Supreme Court said the Court of Appeal’s conclusion rested on an overall assessment of the evidence, particularly the oral testimony of the accused and the witness. It said that assessment could not be reviewed by the Supreme Court and upheld the conviction.

In deciding whether to impose a sentence, the Supreme Court noted that there was no evidence the man had committed the forgery for financial gain. He had also bought all the shares in the company on the same day as the offence. He had received a six-month suspended prison sentence for extortion on June 13, 2023, after the forgery took place. The Supreme Court considered the extortion offence much more serious and concluded that the man would not have received a heavier sentence if both offences had been dealt with in the earlier case.

The Court of Appeal’s order on legal costs was upheld. The man was ordered to pay half the appeal costs at the Supreme Court, with the remainder covered by the state.