False Reports, Misappropriation, and Breach of Contract Claims
Article 5: Mr. Dam rented a house from Mr. Dee for residential purposes. However, on certain days, Mr. Dam operated an illegal gambling den at the aforementioned rental house. Mr. Dee, the homeowner, reprimanded Mr. Dam regarding this activity. Mr. Dee affirmed to Mr. Dee that he would not operate a gambling den at the rental house again. Nevertheless, Mr. Dam subsequently sent a notice of termination of the lease agreement to Mr. Dam by mistake. Mr. Dee instructed Mr. Dam to return the aforementioned letter, but Mr. Dam refused, stating that he did not receive the letter of termination. Following this, Mr. Dam appointed Mr. Chue to file a complaint with the police investigating officers regarding Mr. Dee’s alleged forgery of the letter. The police investigated Mr. Dee, due to Mr. Dam’s apprehension that the letter existed and would be used in a breach of contract lawsuit against Mr. Dee, Mr. Dam asserted the claim of forged documents as a defense in the breach of contract lawsuit. Mr. Chue had no knowledge of the truth regarding the letter, namely that it was not a forged document. Did Mr. Dam and Mr. Chue commit any offenses?
Letter of Assurance Not to Operate a Gambling Den, signed by Mr. Dam, was considered property of Mr. Dee. Mr. Dee inadvertently included the letter with the notice of termination and handover of possession of the letter. Mr. Dee’s subsequent request to return the letter was a hindrance to Mr. Dam using the letter to prove the truth regarding the breach of contract, constituting concealment and misappropriation of another person’s documents causing damage to the other person, which constitutes a violation of Section 188 of the Criminal Code.
Regarding the case where Mr. Dam appointed Mr. Chue to file a complaint with the police investigating officers regarding Mr. Dee’s alleged forgery of the letter, Mr. Dee fabricated the aforementioned letter, and Mr. Chue was unaware of the truth regarding the forged document. Therefore, Mr. Dam committed an offense of making false reports to law enforcement officials, without any criminal act occurring. Mr. Chue stated to the police investigating officers that he was causing another person to be punished, in violation of Section 137, 173, and 174 of the Criminal Code. This act of wrongdoing was carried out by deceiving Mr. Chue to file a complaint, while Mr. Chue, the recipient of the power of attorney, filed a complaint without knowing that the letter was not a forged document. Therefore, Mr. Chue was unaware of the factual elements of the offense and lacked the intent to commit a crime under Section 5 of the Criminal Code against Mr. Chue. (2 points)