Important decision
Not every failure to pay promised money constitutes embezzlement. In its ruling, Case No. II. ÚS 1414/26, the Constitutional Court overturned the conviction in the case of a fishing tournament organizer who used part of the collected entry fees to pay off his own debt and subsequently failed to pay out the cash prizes. According to the court, it had not been reliably proven that the collected funds had merely been entrusted to him and remained the property of another.
Yet the very act of taking possession of another person’s property is one of the fundamental elements of the crime of embezzlement under Section 206 of the Criminal Code. In this case, the lower courts did not agree even on the nature of the contractual relationship between the organizer and the contestants, and thus also not on whether the entry fees became the property of the organizer.The Constitutional Court therefore emphasized the principle of in dubio pro reo: if a decisive fact cannot be established beyond a reasonable doubt, the court must rule in favor of the defendant.
The ruling thus highlights the important distinction between a civil breach of contract and a criminal offense. Mere failure to fulfill an obligation or to pay the promised amount is not sufficient in itself to warrant a conviction for embezzlement. In this case, the Constitutional Court explicitly stated that the district court must acquit the defendant.
Our team of experienced attorneys will help you solve any legal issue. Within 24 hours we’ll evaluate your situation and suggest a step-by-step solution, including all costs. The price for this proposal is only CZK 690, and this is refunded to you when you order service from us.
In person and online. Just choose the appropriate service or opt for an independent consultation when you are unsure.
