Penal Qualification of Counterfeit Art Possession and Sexual Offenses

Extract

[...] The starting point of the prescription should therefore be set at this date. In accordance with Article 112-2, 4° of the Penal Code, the laws relating to the prescription of public action are immediately applicable, provided that the prescription is not already acquired on the date of entry into force of the new law. The principle of legality opposes the fact that a prescription already acquired can be challenged. In this case, by retaining a starting point of prescription fixed on March the prescription was not acquired on the date of entry into force of the law of February Therefore, the immediate application of the new prescription rules does not infringe the principle of criminal legality. [...]

[...] In this case, Salim is prosecuted for possession of counterfeit works of art on the basis of Article L. 335-2 of the Intellectual Property Code, so it is necessary to verify whether the facts complained of correspond strictly to the constitutive elements provided for by this text. According to Article 112-1 of the Penal Code, a harsher penal law, whether it creates a new offense or extends its scope, cannot be applied to facts committed prior to its entry into force. [...]

[...] Salim indicates that he acquired them between 2004 and 2006, without the intention of resale. He is prosecuted for possession of counterfeit works on the basis of Article L. 335-2 of the Intellectual Property Code, and declared guilty by the Court of Appeal for possession of facts from March 11, 2014. Is the possession of counterfeit works of art discovered at Salim's home susceptible of penal qualification under Article L. 335-2 of the Intellectual Property Code, taking into account the evolution of the incriminating text and the principle of criminal legality? [...]

[...] Criminal Legality The present consultation concerns four distinct cases in criminal law, which will be studied successively. I. The application of the principle of criminal legality in matters of territorial jurisdiction Amrit is being investigated for alleged rape and sexual assault of his two minor daughters between 2018 and 2025 in England, Germany, and France. He contests the jurisdiction of French courts for the acts committed abroad. The investigating chamber retains French jurisdiction considering the acts as a single, repeated, and continuous action, forming an indivisible whole. [...]

[...] In this case, Karl would have masturbated under his skirt while sitting on a bench and looking at another man. However, the mere fact of looking at a person does not allow establishing that his sexual organs were actually visible, nor that the exposure was imposed on the view of others, in the absence of any element demonstrating that this person was forced to witness a sexual exposure. Moral Element Sexual exhibition is an intentional offense, the moral element residing in the will to impose on others the view of a sexual exposure. [...]