The office of public prosecution accused a defendant of forging bank statements and seizing the money of a victim and stealing her banking papers. The office requested the court to penalise the defendant according to the relevant laws.

The court ruled that the defendant should be imprisoned for seven years and that the forged statements should be confiscated.

The defendant appealed the ruling before the court of appeal. The court upheld the appealed ruling.

The defendant appealed the ruling before the court of cassation. He said in his grounds of appeal that the ruling had erred in the application of law. He said that the elements of the crime had not existed in his case.

The court said that this argument was invalid. The court said that the elements of the crime had existed because the defendant had forged the bank statements in order to change the fact and steal the victim’s money. The court said that the criminal intention had existed in the case.

The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the appealed ruling.