Examining Ethiopia’s Federal Supreme Court Cassation Division’s Position on Concurrence of Fraudulent Misrepresentation and Forgery Offences

Abstract

Forgery and fraudulent misrepresentation are usually categorised as commercial or white-collar offences since they are committed to get pecuniary benefits.  The act of forgery is criminalised to ensure the trustworthiness of public and business documents, while the fraudulent misrepresentation act is criminalised to protect constitutionally guaranteed ownership rights. Consonant with these objectives, Ethiopia has criminalised these acts through its criminal law. It also makes the act of deceiving through counterfeited documents a material concurrent offence. Nonetheless, the Federal Supreme Court (FSC) cassation division has been holding an inconsistent position on the issue of material concurrence offences of deceiving through counterfeited documents. Thus, this article aims to examine these positions of the division in light of the Ethiopian criminal law through the analysis of the law and specific cases. The case analysis highlights the contradictory position of the FSC cassation division. The division, in some case, held that the act of deceiving through a counterfeited document is a material concurrence offence of fraud and forgery, while, in another cases, it held that the act of deceiving through a counterfeited document could not constitute material concurrence offence of fraudulent misrepresentation and forgery rather only the offence of fraudulent misrepresentation. Therefore, this article draws the flawed position held by the FSC cassation division and highlights the correct interpretation of material concurrence offences of deception through counterfeited documents.

Keywords:  Cassation Division, Concurrent Offences, Forgery, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Unity of Offences