The crime of squandering of seizures

The crime of squandering of seizures
The legal basis for the lawsuit: Article 342 of the Penal Code stipulates that: A judgment of previous penalties shall be imposed on the appointed owner as a guard over his belongings who have been seized by judicial or administrative authority if he pecks something of them.
The lawsuit documents: A copy of the minutes of the executive seizure: a copy of the minutes in which the report proves the absence of the attached movables.
Competent court: the misdemeanor court in which the crime has occurred or the district in which the accused resides.
The crime of dispersal of seizures: It is intentionally obstructing the procedures of judicial or administrative seizure by misappropriating the confiscated money, with the knowledge of other than the custodian (Article 323) or wasting it or detaining him from execution with the knowledge of the same guard (Article 342) even if either of them is the owner.
Conditions for establishing the crime:
1- The place of the crime: the presence of things seized - for money it is required that it be movable money of a material nature, and if it is not required that it be owned by others, and as for seizing the money, this seizure is equal to that it be judicial or administrative. Under the hands of the public authority and has acquired inviolability, it is not permissible to violate it until it is removed from the authority that issued the order or waived by the one who signed it for his benefit.
2- The material element: embezzlement - embezzlement does not mean here the meaning that we have known in breach of trust, and especially for the owner who is a guardian of his things as he does not imagine in his right to change possession from deficient to complete, but in this respect every act that the guard intends to obstruct Achieving the purpose of the reservation.
The misappropriation of the things seized may be by squandering these things, that is, by disposing of them by sale or by clearing or by consuming them or by destroying them, and it may be by concealing things, but by simply not presenting them for sale is considered embezzlement.
3- The moral element: criminal intent - there is criminal intent in this crime if the embezzlement takes place with the intention of preventing the execution of the seized thing or creating obstacles for the purpose of that execution, and the criminal intent requires the availability of two elements of will and knowledge.
Completeness of the crime: The crime is carried out with embezzlement associated with the intent to obstruct the execution. This crime is one of the temporary crimes that takes place and ends as soon as the act of embezzlement takes place, and therefore the period of extinguishing the lawsuit with it must be running from that time.
Participation in the crime: The guard may have a partner in dissipating the crime, and he will be liable for the crime according to the general rules of participation, but the difficulty is if the partner is the owner of the confiscated items. Article 342 stipulates penalties for not being applicable to the owner unless he is a guard.
Punishment: Imprisonment, and a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds may be added to him.
       Asserting that the elements of the crime of dispelling seizures are not met:
1- The crime of dispossessing seized seizures shall not be realized except by embezzlement of seized items, disposing of them, or obstructing the execution thereof by not presenting them on the day of the sale with the intention of fraud, i.e. with the intention of violating the orders of the public authority and infringing on the rights of the distrainer creditor.
2- The Court of Cassation ruled that it is decided that the punishment for the crime of dispersal of seizures is required for the accused to be aware of real knowledge of the date set for the sale, then he deliberately fails to present the seized items on this day with the intent to obstruct the execution, and it is not sufficient to prove knowledge based on the ruling to announce the accused in a confrontation of his subordinate Without evidence that the accused is proven aware of him by certainty, if such considerations are valid to adhere to against the accused from a civil point of view, then it is not valid in the criminal matters to hold him accountable accordingly.
What was that and the appealed ruling had inferred the availability of the appellant’s knowledge of the day to which the sale was postponed, with what is fixed in the report of the sale postponement, that the seizure representative addressed the shop’s worker in his capacity as a subordinate to the appellant, and from the latter’s admission in the memorandum presented of his defense of the subordination of this factor He has arranged for this announcement to have his knowledge available on the day set for sale without making sure that the appellant is aware of this day by making clear that the recipient of the declaration has informed of the appellant, because the appealed ruling is tainted by deficiencies that warrant its reversal.
(Appeal No. 176 for 44 years, session 3/2/1974)
3- The Court of Cassation ruled that when the defendant argued that the seizures were dispersed before a second-degree court that the seizure took place in his short country and that his country was determined for sale, indicating that he was not charged with transporting the seized items to the place that was determined for sale, which makes him not responsible for not presenting them in this place and did not mean The court has investigated this defense and has not responded to it, despite its importance and the necessity of scrutiny and response to it, as its ruling is minor.
(Appeal No. 1050 for the age of 36 BC session 11/26/1956)
4- It is legally established that the crime of dispossessing the confiscated items takes place by simply failing to present these things from those in his custody to the person charged with selling them on the day set for sale with the intention of obstructing the execution.
(Appeal No. 78 for 41 years, hearing 12/19/1971)
5 - The punishment for the crime of dispossessing of seizures is that the accused is aware of the certainty of the date set for the sale and then deliberately fails to present the seized items on this day with the intention of obstructing the execution, announcing the accused of the day to which the sale is postponed in the face of his subordinate who is not sufficient to make a confirmation of his knowledge of it.
(Appeal No. 176 for 44 years, session 3/3/1974)
6- The law does not require that the crime of embezzlement of seized items and the availability of the criminal intent be dispersed or disposed of by the guard, rather it is sufficient for him to refrain from presenting them on the day of sale or to instruct them with the intention of obstructing the execution to harm the distrainer creditor.
(Appeal No. 1459 for 42 BC session 5/12/1975)
7 - It is decided that the court is not mandated to speak independently of the criminal intent in the crime of squandering the things that are seized, as long as the facts that they have mentioned are sufficient to reveal them as defined in the law
(Appeal No. 817 for the age of 45 BC session 05/26/1975)
8- The Court of Cassation ruled that when the court has based its judgment on the evidence of the accused's knowledge of dispersal of the items seized on the day specified for sale on the mere refusal to receive the papers stating that the sale is postponed to another day, without looking into them if he knew of the sale in real knowledge, then This abstinence and

Its alone does not lead to proof of knowledge, and the ruling is short and tainted with corruption of reasoning.
(Appeal No. 1508 for the age of 36 BC session 11/2/1957)
9 - If the first two judgments and the appeal are not presented to indicate the amount of the confiscated wheat and its value and the value of what the accused brought to the credit bank in kind and what he paid to the cashier before the date set for the sale last, and is the sum of that less or more than the value of the seized crop or equal with it with the importance of this statement for standing On the amount of the defendant’s health defense, which concludes that he supplied the confiscated wheat to the bank as well as paid an amount of ........... Pounds on the day set for the sale, and the effect of this defense on the crime of waste or its absence, then the ruling if it does not mean The income of this statement is tinged with deficiencies, which is a defect and requires its repeal.
(Appeal No. 1057 for the age of 38 BC session 10/20/1958)
10 - The law requires in every indictment judgment to include in the text of the statement of the incident requiring the penalty a statement verifying the elements of the crime in which it took place and the evidence from which the court extracted that it has been proven by the accused and the person submitting that evidence until it becomes clear that it is evident in it and the safety of its source, otherwise it is minor, if the appealed judgment is In it, he confined himself to proving the occurrence of the crime of embezzlement of seized items that are entrusted to the accused to saying that it is “proven from the seizure and waste reports, and that the seized items were not presented on the day specified for their sale with the intention of obstructing the execution, without the performer of the statements of the cashier who witnessed the incident and without showing the evidence from which he extracted Attributing it to the accused because he did not present the seized items and that this was with the intention of obstructing the execution.
(Appeal No. 677 for the year 31 BC session 1/16/1962)
11 - Whenever it was evident to those who had access to the minutes of the appeals trial session that the appellant decided that he was falsifying the seizure report because what was proven in him that he was present at the time of seizure is not valid, as it is evident from the appealed ruling that he supported the preliminary judgment for its reasons without addressing a defense The appellant referred to when what the appellant raised in connection with the seizure report is a fundamental defense, as it is intended to deny the moral element of the crime for which he was indicted and to deny his status as a guard who is obligated to preserve the seized items and present them on the day of the sale, and the appealed judgment was taken with the seizure report and the data recorded therein and not He should pay attention to this defense, so he does not obtain it as proof of it or an answer to it, if it is tainted by a defect in the deficiency and breach of the right of defense, which necessitates its denial and referral.
(Appeal No. 138 for 41 years, session 25/4/1971)