(b) A is a storer. Z, who goes on a trip, entrusts his furniture A, in accordance with a contract, that they are returned against payment of an amount agreed for the storage room. A dishonest sells the goods. A committed a breach of criminal trust. Therefore, if there is an offence of infidelity in a given case, the person should not be indicted for fraud for the same acts or vice versa. When immovable property is entrusted in this way, the victim does so voluntarily and with free consent and the offence is committed only later, when the accused develops a dishonest intention to transform the entrusted property into his own use. In sentencing, the court would take into account various circumstances in judging the seriousness of the offence: however, if the intention of the accused was bonafide at the time of designation and then developed a dishonest intention to transform the property into his own use, it would be an offence of infidelity and not fraud. It is therefore essential to determine the intention of the accused and, beyond that, the date of that intention. In Wolfgang Reim & Ors v.
The answer would be a categorical NO, because although the victim voluntarily entrusted his property, the same was not done with free consent, because he was deceived or dishonestly led to part with his property. In such a situation, it would therefore be the offence of fraud and not a breach of criminal trust, since the unfair intent of the fraud existed from the outset. « 405. Criminal breach of trust. » – Anyone who is entrusted in any way with the ownership or domination of property, who dishonestly misapply such property or transforms it into its own use, or uses or sells such property dishonestly, in violation of a law imposing the manner in which such trust is to be discharged or of a contract of law, expressly or implicitly that he has touched the discharge of such trust or that he is deliberately subjected to another, commits a « breach of criminal trust ». After the case of Er Joo Nguang and another against the prosecutor, dishonest intent can rarely be demonstrated directly, but must be inferred from the conduct of the accused and the circumstances of the accused. For example, if someone knows that the assets were intended for a specific purpose and that those assets were ultimately used for other purposes, without the knowledge and knowledge of the owner of the assets, such use of the assets may be considered dishonest. In my humble opinion, I believe that these two offences, according to their simple definition, must oppose each other and not be charged together. Before we look further at exactly how antithetical they are, it is essential to define these offences and discuss their fundamental elements. There should be fraudulent or dishonest incitement to a person by deceiving them.