THE BOTTOM LINE
- Active confirmation creates liability: Your company can be found guilty of document forgery as a co-perpetrator, even if you only confirm receipt of goods in a digital system, knowing the shipment is fake. The court considers this an essential act in creating the false record.
- Corporate liability outlives the business: A company being defunct and facing a massive tax bill doesn’t guarantee it will avoid criminal penalties. Courts may still impose fines to punish the undermining of tax systems and fair competition.
- Document purpose is key: Even unfiled or unsigned transport documents (like CMR freight letters) intended to mislead authorities in case of an inspection are considered legally significant forgeries. Their potential for deception gives them an evidentiary purpose.
THE DETAILS
A Dutch logistics company, licensed as a bonded warehouse for excisable goods, has been fined €20,000 for its role in a sophisticated, international alcohol tax fraud scheme. The court’s ruling provides critical insights for any business involved in complex supply chains. The scheme involved creating a false paper and digital trail for alcohol shipments across Europe. By using the official EU Excise Movement and Control System (EMCS), the company and its partners pretended to ship alcohol to countries with low excise duties, while the goods were actually sold on the black market in high-tax jurisdictions, evading millions in taxes.
The company’s defense centered on its supposedly limited role. For several falsified electronic administrative documents (e-ADs) originating in France, the company argued it didn’t create them; it merely acted as the receiving party and digitally confirmed their arrival. The District Court of Oost-Brabant decisively rejected this argument. It ruled that knowingly confirming a fictitious receipt in an official system like EMCS is a “significant contribution” to the forgery. This act validates the false trail and is essential for the fraud to succeed, making the company a co-perpetrator, just as liable as the party that initiated the document.
The verdict sends a clear message about corporate responsibility in the digital age. Although the company is no longer operational and already faces a tax reassessment of over €1.1 million, the court refused to let the criminal charges go unpunished. The prosecutor had argued for a guilty verdict without a penalty, but the court deemed the systematic fraud too serious. It highlighted that such schemes undermine national tax revenues and create unfair competition for legitimate businesses. The final €20,000 fine—reduced from €25,000 due to procedural delays—underscores that courts will hold corporate entities accountable for their role in systemic fraud, even after they have ceased trading.
SOURCE
Source: Rechtbank Oost-Brabant
