Reporting something that did not happen: what it costs
Reporting an offence that never took place carries one to three years. Naming an innocent person as the culprit is a different and far heavier offence, two to six years. And where the report was made to support an insurance claim, a third charge follows. The three are routinely brought together.
Three offences, one act
| Offence | Content | Provision |
|---|---|---|
| Simulation of an offence | Reporting a crime that did not occur, or faking its traces | Art. 367 Criminal Code |
| Calunnia | Accusing a person known to be innocent | Art. 368 |
| Insurance fraud | Damaging or misrepresenting insured property for a claim | Art. 642 |
| Fraud | Where a payment was obtained by deception | Art. 640 |
| Self-accusation | Accusing yourself of an offence you did not commit | Art. 369 |
The step from the first to the second is a single detail: whether a name was given. Reporting that an unknown person stole a vehicle is simulation. Reporting that a specific person did it, knowing they did not, is calunnia, and the minimum sentence doubles.
The situation that generates most of these files
It is almost always the same one. A vehicle is reported stolen, or goods are reported taken, and a claim follows. The insurer's own checks produce the anomaly — telematics data, an inconsistency between the report and the damage, the vehicle recovered somewhere that does not fit — and the file goes to the prosecutor.
By then the evidence is documentary and dated, which is what makes these cases difficult. The report exists, the claim exists, and both are in writing with a time on them.
What actually has to be proved
- That the offence reported did not occur. Not that the account was imprecise: many reports contain exaggeration or error without being false.
- That the report was capable of triggering proceedings. A manifestly implausible statement that could not have set anything in motion does not meet the definition.
- Knowledge of the falsity. An honest mistake about what happened excludes the offence, and a plausible mistaken perception has to be documented rather than asserted.
- For calunnia, that a person was accused. Naming a suspicion in general terms is not the same as accusing a person known to be innocent.
Can you take it back?
Withdrawal is not provided as a defence to simulation, unlike the position for false testimony. But withdrawing spontaneously, before the report has produced consequences for anyone, weighs substantially on the assessment of the offence and on mitigation.
The more important reason to act early is different: it is what prevents the case escalating. Once someone has been identified as the supposed culprit, the matter has moved from simulation to calunnia, and that is the outcome to avoid.
If you have been called in about a report you made
This is the moment at which people damage themselves most, by attending to explain and repeating the account under questioning. That repetition is itself evidence.
Establish first in what capacity you are being heard: a person who made a report is being treated as a suspect once the report itself is under examination, and the rules on questioning then apply in your favour. The position is set out in the guide on being questioned and, where you were heard as a witness, in the guide on witness summonses.
Frequently asked questions
What happens if I reported a theft that did not occur?
Simulation of an offence carries one to three years. If an insurance claim followed, a further charge of insurance fraud or fraud is normally added.
What if I named someone?
Naming a person known to be innocent is calunnia, carrying two to six years. It is the single detail that separates the two offences.
Can I withdraw the report?
Withdrawal is not a defence to simulation, but withdrawing before the report has affected anyone weighs substantially, and it prevents the case escalating.
I made a mistake about what happened.
Knowledge of the falsity is required. A plausible mistaken perception excludes the offence, but it has to be documented rather than simply asserted.
If a report has been questioned
The insurer's file and the record of the original report are the case, and both exist already. First contact is free and covered by professional privilege.