Misdemeanor betrayal of a blank signed paper

Misdemeanor betrayal of a blank signed paper
The legal basis for the case: Article 340 of the Penal Code stipulates that: Whoever entrusts a paper signed or sealed on a blank sheet of trust and writes in the white on top of the seal or signature a debt document, clearance or other bonds and bonds that result in harm to the same owner The signature, the seal, or his money shall be punished with imprisonment and a fine not exceeding fifty Egyptian pounds may be added to him.
In the event that the signed or sealed paper was not delivered to the traitor in white, but rather obtained it in any way, then it is considered forged and is punishable by the penalty for forgery.
Claim documents: the original trust receipt or check, an official copy of the police report, payment clearance or any proof of payment.
 Competent court: the misdemeanor court in which the crime has occurred or the district in which the accused resides.
The crime of breach of trust: The relationship of this crime to breach of trust in the fact that a person has deposited his confidence in another, and trust him on a white paper signed by him to take over the filling of the space above the signature with a matter agreed upon with him, such as a request, a complaint or a contract, so the recipient of this paper betrayed and filled the void with something other than The agreed upon signatory suffers material damage such as proof of debt or settlement.
 Conditions in the location of the crime:
1- A signed or sealed white paper.
2- Handing over the paper in trust.
 The material element: The act of treason is the material element in this crime stipulated in Article 340, where it said, “And in the whiteness that is above the seal or the signature is written a debt bond, clearance or other bonds and bonds that result in harm to the same owner of the signature or the seal or his money.
In this, it clearly indicates that the text deals with punishment whoever writes above the signature in writing, which will result in harm to the person who owns the signature or his money or is likely to harm him, regardless of whether this harm is material or moral, achieved or only possible.
Criminal intent: the crime of breach of trust based on the infliction of an intentional crime of general criminal intent, not requiring that the will of the accused go to prove the data that he placed above the signature or seal, and to harm even in its probable form.
 And that the perpetrator knows that what he wrote above the signature and the signature contradicts what he has in it, that this writing harms the owner of the signature or is liable to harm him.
Court of Cassation rulings: It is not permissible to take a decisive oath on an incident contrary to public order. Article 115 proof. The inadmissibility of swearing in an incident that constitutes a criminal offense. In the crime of embezzlement, the legislator took the penalty for forgery of customary papers, which is imprisonment with hard labor, according to Articles 215 and 340 penalties. Its effect: it is not permissible to direct a decisive oath in it.
Al-Qaeda:
Whereas the text of the first paragraph of Article 115 of the Evidence Law stipulates that - it is not permissible to take a decisive oath on an incident contrary to public order - and it is a text transmitted from the repealed civil law within Chapter Six of Book One of the First Section of this Law - as stipulated in Article One of Law No. 25 of 1968 promulgating the Evidence Law in civil and commercial matters, and it had no compensation in the old law - that the street - based on what is taken from the memorandum of the preliminary draft draft civil law - has approved jurisprudence and the judiciary on the scope of application of the decisive oath, and from it it is likely in the Egyptian judiciary that it is not permissible to swear an oath. A criminal offense shall be based on the fact that it is not permissible for the oath to be evidence of the commission of the crime, and the embezzlement of the signature on the whiteness of a crime was taken as the penalty for forgery in the customary papers, which is the penalty of imprisonment with labor according to Articles 215 and 340 of the Penal Code. I put forward the appealed judgment. The appellant’s request in this regard has corrected the correct law «Article 115 of the Evidence Law and Articles 215,340 of the Penal Code»
(Appeal No. 3498 of 61 Q, session 14/5/1996 Q47, p. 632)