1998.07.14

1998 (A) 385

Keishu Vol. 52, No. 5, at 343

Decision upon whether producing a false lease contract to the court constitutes a charge of obstructing auctions

Case of obstruction of auctions

Decision of the Second Petty Bench, dismissed

Takamatsu High Court, Judgment of February 24, 1998

In respect of the real estate for which a ruling to commence a sale by auction was made, producing a lease contract with false contents to the effect that a short-term lease contract was entered into with the owner of the said real estate earlier than the said ruling with intent to prevent the fair effectuation of the sale thereof constitutes a charge of obstructing auctions by fraudulent means.

Article 96-3 of the Penal Code

Article 96-3 of the Penal Code
(1) A person who by the use of fraudulent means or force commits an act which impairs the fairness of a public auction or bid, shall be punished by imprisonment with work for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than 2,500,000 yen.
(2) The same shall apply to a person who colludes for the purpose of preventing a fair determination of price or acquiring a wrongful gain.

Main text of the decision
This appeal shall be dismissed.

In the statement of reasons for final appeal presented by the appellant him/herself, the arguments including the alleged conflict with Article 31 of the Constitution are, in substance, no more than an assertion of errors in application/construction of the laws and regulations, errors in fact-finding, unjust sentencing, none of which falls under any of the grounds for final appeal specified in Article 405 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Additionally, judging from the findings of the court of second instance that the defendant, in conspiracy with B, D and F, in respect of the land and building owned by A and others for which Tokushima District Court decided to commence a sale by auction, schemed to prevent the fair effectuation of the sale thereof, pretending as if lease contracts existed, and filed with the said court a written petition for examination of the said land and building that were alleged to have been leased to others already, together with a copy of each lease contract with false contents to the effect that a short-term lease contract was entered into between A et al. and D, F earlier than the said ruling, it is obvious that the defendant is chargeable with obstruction of auctions by fraudulent means set forth in Article 96-3, para.1 of the Penal Code, hence the determination of the judgment of prior instance purporting the same is upheld as right.
Therefore, in accordance with Article 414, Article 386, para.1, item 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Justices rule unanimously on the case as rendered in the main text of the decision.

Justice NEGISHI Shigeharu
Justice ONISHI Katsuya
Justice KAWAI Shinichi
Justice FUKUDA Hiroshi