False registration in corporate documents concerns details that were recorded, or omitted, in company documents with intent to defraud. An accounting error or a business dispute in themselves do not prove a criminal offense.
What must be proven
Section 423 of the Penal Law deals with a founder, manager, member, or officer of a corporation, who recorded or caused a false detail to be recorded in a corporate document with intent to defraud, or intentionally refrained, with that intent, from recording a detail he was required to record. The role of the suspect, the specific document, the truthfulness of the data, and the evidence of intent must be examined. The mere signing of a document does not replace an inquiry into actual knowledge and involvement.
Which documents may be relevant
Protocols, invoices, bookkeeping ledgers, internal reports, and computerized documents may be part of the investigative material. It is important to preserve previous versions, correspondence, work instructions, and authorization data. These can clarify who entered the data, who approved it, and what was known to each party in real time.
Clarifying a suspicion within the company
A distinction must be made between the company's liability and the personal liability of employees and officers. The company's defense is not necessarily identical to that of each employee, and in the event of a conflict of interest, separate representation should be considered. Records must not be altered retroactively or versions coordinated; a necessary business correction should be documented and transparent.
Preparing for an investigation
Before giving a version, it is advisable to prepare a timeline of the document's creation, the authorities and approvals, and to check whether the suspicion also includes fraud, tax, or securities offenses. Individual legal advice makes it possible to clarify the meaning of the documents without relying on assumptions of automatic liability by virtue of the role.
What must be proven — what is important to know?
Section 423 of the Penal Law deals with a founder, manager, member, or officer of a corporation, who recorded or caused a false detail to be recorded in a corporate document with intent to defraud, or intentionally refrained, with that intent, from recording a detail he was required to record. The role of the suspect, the specific document, the truthfulness of the data, and the evidence of intent must be examined. The mere signing of a document does not replace an inquiry into actual knowledge and involvement.
Which documents may be relevant — what is important to know?
Protocols, invoices, bookkeeping ledgers, internal reports, and computerized documents may be part of the investigative material. It is important to preserve previous versions, correspondence, work instructions, and authorization data. These can clarify who entered the data, who approved it, and what was known to each party in real time.
Clarifying a suspicion within the company — what is important to know?
A distinction must be made between the company's liability and the personal liability of employees and officers. The company's defense is not necessarily identical to that of each employee, and in the event of a conflict of interest, separate representation should be considered. Records must not be altered retroactively or versions coordinated; a necessary business correction should be documented and transparent.
Preparing for an investigation — what is important to know?
Before giving a version, it is advisable to prepare a timeline of the document's creation, the authorities and approvals, and to check whether the suspicion also includes fraud, tax, or securities offenses. Individual legal advice makes it possible to clarify the meaning of the documents without relying on assumptions of automatic liability by virtue of the role.
This information is for initial orientation about the service and contact process. It is not individual legal advice.
Initial call No obligation