Article 173: False report that a crime occurred

Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section

1. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 981/2561 (2018)

   Section 173 is a specific provision, so when conduct falls under it there is no need to also apply the general false-statement offence in Section 137; and where no actual theft offence occurred, the conduct is likewise not an offence under Section 172.

   The Court held that Section 173, as a specific provision, displaces the general false-statement offence in Section 137, so both need not be applied together. Because no actual theft had occurred, the conduct also did not fall under Section 172. The decision clarifies the relationship between Sections 173, 172 and 137.

2. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 5151/2563 (2020)

   Where a person reports events to an inquiry official as they genuinely understood them, and it is the official's function, not the reporter's act, to decide whether to bring a charge, the report is not a false report, because the consequence does not arise directly from the reporter's conduct.

   The defendant reported to an inquiry official based on events that led him to believe the complainant should be prosecuted. The Court reasoned that whether to lay a charge was for the official to decide, not a direct result of the defendant's report, so the conduct was not a false report. This supports a good-faith-belief defence to Section 173.

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.