A bank employee extorted loans. The court softened his punishment. All because of the assignment

1.5 years in prison and 40,000 PLN fine – such a final judgment was passed on Friday before the Court of Appeal in Bialystok to the 63 -year -old chief accused in the trial of extorting a total of PLN 2 million of bank loans and attempted to extort another PLN 3.5 million.

The court of first instance sentenced a man to 3.5 years in prison, a fine and an obligation to repair damage and return to the bank over 600,000. zloty.

The indictment of the District Prosecutor's Office in Bialystok covered five people. Investigators accused them that in 2015-2018 they attached false employment certificates in one of them when submitting loan applications. The total amount of extorted loans amounted to over PLN 2 million, and over PLN 3.5 million is an amount that was tried to extort, but the applications were considered by the banks.

The findings of the investigation showed that the property situation of these people did not allow to incur any financial obligations, because they were unemployed or achieved very low income. The 63-year-old owner of the company had the most charges-48 crimes.

The amounts (extorted or which were tried to extort) in individual cases ranged from several to tens of thousands of zlotys. Several banks had the status of victims in this matter.

According to the prosecutor's office, the main accused inspired this procedure, money from loans also came to him, he also promised that he would pay them back. As the prosecutor's office explained, the scheme of action consisted in the fact that each subsequent loan was higher than the previous one and the earlier loan was repaid.

The District Court in Bialystok found a 63-year-old who was the main accused, guilty of all crimes that he was accused of in the indictment. He sentenced him to 3.5 years in prison and 40 thousand. PLN fine; He also has – as part of the obligation to repair the damage – to give the bank over 600 thousand. PLN from several unpaid loans.

The appeal court softened this judgment on Friday, in two allegations he changed the qualification of acts from fraud to an attempt to extort a loan, and also repealed the need to repair the damage. He maintained the fine.

As judge Janusz Sulima assessed, The accused's fault is beyond doubt, and the defender's appeal deserved only in part to be taken into account. As he noted, there is no doubt that most of the acts were committed by the accused; There is also no doubt that in deeds where another person was to take loans, the accused jointly and in agreement or as a helper committed them. He added that the explanations of people who burdened the accused are credible.

The court, referring to the obligation to repair the damage awarded by the first instance, indicated that it could not be awarded. Sulima justified that the bank “had assured all these claims.”

“If he assigged the claim to another entity that will enforce these receivables, this assignment meant that the bank has ceased to be a victim” – added the judge. Therefore – as he said – the obligation to fix the damage had to be repealed.

Sulima, justifying the milder punishment, said that Although there were many loans for different amounts and if it were to sum up a few hundred thousand zlotys, the accused was not punished so far, and also tried to pay off some of these loans. “It was true that it was on such a principle that he took another, to pay off the previous ones, but still such an action to repair the damage was taken by him. Therefore, the Court decided that the penalty adequate to the degree of his fault, taking into account his jurisdiction and personal conditions, would be one year and six months imprisonment as a total penalty,” the court argued.

In the same trial, the first instance court sentenced three other persons to penalties from eight months to a year in prison; In one case, he also ruled the obligation to repair the damage; He discontinued the proceedings in the face of the next one. The convicted persons did not appeal, the prosecutor's office (PAP) did not appeal against the judgments.

Swi/ Rof/ Mark/