Extract
[...] Montana and giving him precise instructions and means. The intentional element of M. LOPEZ is well characterized. If he could be an accomplice to murder at the end of the article 121-7 of the Penal Code, it is nevertheless learned that M. MONTANA, after having accepted, reverts to his decision and refuses, the attempt cannot be characterized due to the absence of commencement of execution on the part of the latter. In order for complicity to be retained, it is necessary that the crime or offense has been consummated, which is not the case here. [...]
[...] The complicity by recording and diffusion of a crime or delit Finally, the brother of Mr. LOPEZ, Mr. SUAREZ, wanting to avenge the non-execution by Mr. MONTANA of the initially passed contract, wants to attack Mr. MONTANA. He therefore premeditates an attack against him, which he executes by hitting him several times violently on the head and cutting off his thumb. Mr. LOPEZ, who has fortuitously found himself in the same place, decides not to intervene but rather to film the scene from his vehicle to broadcast it on the social network tiktok. [...]
[...] The financial compensation for this service amounts to 200,000 Mr. LOPEZ therefore provides precise instructions to identify his wife, including locations, times, and a precise description of her clothing. He also provides a lethal weapon and instructions: aim for the head and then take photos. Mr. MONTANA accepts, but ultimately renounces to carry out this contract. The question then arises of the criminal responsibility of the two protagonists who, for one, instigate a murder and the second who accepts it at first before resolving to do so. [...]
[...] The intentional element is deduced by the knowledge of the criminal nature of the facts committed and their diffusion. Therefore, the violence was committed voluntarily, the capture and diffusion also, although there was no joint agreement, Mr. Lopez, by participating in his own way in the actions of Mr. SUAREZ, becomes his accomplice. Thus, Mr. SUAREZ is responsible for voluntary and premeditated violence that resulted in permanent disability, and Mr. LOPEZ, by simply recording and broadcasting these acts, becomes his accomplice. [...]
[...] The Court of Cassation (Cass. Crim March 1997) estimates from then on that these facts fall within the scope of article 450-1 of the Penal Code, of association with a malefactor. We can add here that similar facts have already been judged by the Court of Cassation which, in a judgment of 3 June 2004 affirm « characterises an association of malefactors, for the acquisition of a large quantity of heroin, the 'couple formed' by two individuals, who had contacts with a supplier and organised a delivery together using various vehicles, including a stolen car, with a large sum of money at their disposal ». [...]
