Federal Supreme Court, 09.03.2026, 6B_696/2025
Facts
A.________, a long-term recipient of social assistance and heavily in debt, was found guilty by the Vaud cantonal authorities of multiple offenses committed over several years. These include the illicit receipt of over 13,000 CHF in social benefits by concealing income and a temporary move outside the canton; several cases of fraud in which she posed as a real estate professional to extract money from people looking for housing (totaling several thousand francs); the creation and provision of forged documents (debt collection register extracts, salary certificates) for a fee to help herself or others obtain rental apartments; and the representation of violence. Sentenced in the first instance to a 12-month suspended prison sentence, she appealed. The Vaud Criminal Court of Appeal upheld the majority of the charges, acquitting her only of attempted fraud. Although the court indicated in its reasoning that it intended to reduce the sentence to 11 months, it maintained the 12-month sentence in the operative part of its judgment. The appellant has appealed to the Federal Supreme Court, challenging her convictions for fraud, illicit receipt of benefits, and forgery of documents, and criticizing the sentencing.
Law
The Federal Supreme Court reiterates the conditions for fraud (Art. 146 SCC), in particular the concept of fraudulent deception. Deception is considered fraudulent when the perpetrator employs a web of lies or fraudulent maneuvers, or when verifying the false information is impossible, difficult, or cannot reasonably be expected of the victim. Case law considers that deceiving someone regarding one's intention to fulfill a contractual obligation constitutes, in principle, fraudulent deception, as it concerns internal facts that cannot be directly verified. Regarding the illicit receipt of social benefits (Art. 148a SCC), this offense, which is subsidiary to fraud, applies when the element of fraudulent deception is absent. It punishes anyone who, through false or incomplete statements, or by withholding facts, obtains an undue benefit. The Federal Supreme Court clarifies the concept of a "minor case" (Art. 148a para. 2 SCC), which depends on the amount (generally less than 3,000 CHF) but also on the overall circumstances and the perpetrator's culpability for intermediate amounts. The Federal Supreme Court also examines the principle of the presumption of innocence (in dubio pro reo), which requires the prosecution to prove guilt and prohibits the judge from considering a fact unfavorable to the accused in the event of serious and irreducible doubt. Finally, it addresses the rules for sentencing, in particular the principle of aggravation (Art. 49 SCC), which requires the judge to start with the sentence for the most serious offense and then increase it in a fair proportion for the other offenses, rather than simply adding them together.
Application to the specific case
The Federal Supreme Court rejects all of the appellant's claims.
- Fraud: The conviction is upheld. By posing as a real estate professional and promising services she had neither the capacity nor the intention to provide, the appellant used fraudulent deception. The victims could not reasonably have verified her alleged connections. Similarly, by concealing her move from social services while continuing to receive benefits including rent she was no longer paying, she caused damage to the State through deception.
- Illicit receipt of benefits: The Federal Supreme Court validates the reasoning of the lower court. The fact that the appellant sent large sums (over 72,000 CHF over several years) abroad allowed the court to conclude, without violating the presumption of innocence, that she had undeclared income. The undue amount of 13,160 CHF and the long duration of the illicit receipt exclude a "minor case," meaning the criminal action is not time-barred. The right against self-incrimination does not apply in administrative social assistance proceedings.
- Forgery of documents: The claim is dismissed. The Federal Supreme Court rules that the amendment of the indictment in the first instance was minor and admissible. Furthermore, the accusation of having "prepared and submitted" forged documents logically covered the less serious scenario in which she had them prepared by a third party before submitting them.
- Sentencing: The appeal is dismissed. Regarding the discrepancy between the reasoning (11 months) and the operative part of the judgment (12 months), the Federal Supreme Court declares the claim inadmissible, as the appellant must first request a correction from the cantonal authority (art. 83 CrimPC). The reasoning for the custodial sentence is deemed sufficient, as the cantonal authority clearly explained the appellant's significant culpability. Finally, the Federal Supreme Court finds that the principle of aggravation was respected and that the sentencing was not a mere mechanical addition of penalties.
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed to the extent that it is admissible. The conviction handed down by the Criminal Court of Appeal of the Cantonal Court of Vaud is upheld. The appellant's request for legal aid is denied, and she is ordered to pay the court costs (CHF 1,200).