Page 41 - MONACO LAW REVIEW 2025-2

MONACO LAW REVIEW | DECEMBER 2025 | COURTROOM INSIGHTS
between the requesting court and the combat zones, sought
a favourable opinion on the extradition. The defence, by
contrast, argued that Ukraine was no longer able to guarantee
a fair trial, having notifi ed the Council of Europe in April 2022
of its derogation from several treaties under Article 15 of the
Convention. The Court noted that the principle of reciprocity
at the heart of the Extradition Convention was rendered
inoperative by Ukraine’s suspension of its international
obligations, and that martial law allowed for prolonged
detention without judicial review. Nothing indicated that
these derogations were limited in time or space, nor that the
scope of those derogations was clearly circumscribed.
It therefore considered that the fundamental guarantees of a
fair trial and of the rights of the defence were not ensured and
issued an unfavourable opinion on the request.
SIGNIFICANCE:
This decision follows the judgment delivered on 12 September
2025, in which the Court of Appeal refused the extradition
of a Russian national to a State excluded from the Council
of Europe. By extending the same reasoning to a State that
remains a party to the Convention but is operating under a
regime of derogation, the judges show that their assessment
also concerns the actual level of protection afforded by the
requesting State, irrespective of its formal status within the
European system. Whether exclusion from the Convention
system (Russia) or a partial suspension of guarantees (Ukraine)
is at issue, the same requirement applies: extradition cannot
be authorised where there is a tangible risk of a violation of
fundamental rights.
SD
of Criminal Procedure, once the order committing the case for
trial has become fi nal, any irregularities committed during the
investigation can no longer be invoked unless that order itself
is irregular. It held that the investigating judge may validly
adopt the Public Prosecutor’s submissions once the facts have
been clearly set out and the rights of the defence have been
upheld. This interpretation, consistent with earlier case law,
reinforces the stability of complex criminal proceedings.
On the merits, the Court identifi ed a structured tax fraud
scheme based on fi ctitious commercial transactions and the
falsifi cation of accounting records. It found that the fraudulent
scheme had led the tax authorities to issue certifi cates
discharging the defendants from tax and value-added tax,
which amounted to a granting of relief within the meaning
of Article 330 of the Criminal Code. Fraud was therefore
established even in the absence of a physical transfer of funds,
since deception of the administration suffi ced to establish
the resulting damage. since deception of the administration
suffi ced to establish the resulting damage.
Adopting a coherent approach to fi nancial crime, the
Court held that the falsifi ed accounting documents directly
incorporated into the fraudulent scheme were absorbed by
the fraud offence, whereas the reinvestment or transfer of the
concealed proceeds justifi ed a separate characterisation of
money laundering, including self-laundering. The defendants,
partially acquitted in respect of some of the charged periods,
were convicted of fraud and money laundering.
SIGNIFICANCE:
The judgment provides a threefold clarifi cation. First, it
specifi es the scope of Article 218 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure by confi rming the lawfulness of orders committing
the case for trial that adopt the Public Prosecutor’s submissions,
provided that the facts are clearly set out. Second, it recognises
that tax fraud may be established without the need to show
an immediate pecuniary loss. Finally, it affi rms the overall
coherence between fraud, forgery and money laundering in
the repression of complex fi nancial schemes.
Tax Fraud and Falsified Accounts:
Strengthening the Repression of
Fraudulent Schemes
Court of Appeal of Monaco, Criminal Division,
17 March 2025
Case R.3861 – Office of the Prosecutor General File
No. 2020/000138
BACKGROUND:
The case concerned a fraud committed against the tax
authorities by the directors of a luxury retail group. The
defendants were accused of organising a system of fi ctitious
exports supported by falsifi ed invoices and accounting
entries, with a view to unlawfully obtaining exemptions
from value-added tax. The issues before the Court included
the lawfulness of the procedure, the scope of Article 218 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure and the distinction between
forgery, fraud and money laundering.
ANALYSIS:
The Court of Appeal recalled that, under Article 218 of the Code
SD
Monegasque Pragmatism and the
European Convention: Protecting the
Magistrat’s Office
Court of Revision, 24 June 2019
Case R.5615. Appeal No. 2019-28
BACKGROUND:
In criminal proceedings brought for the offence of outrage
à magistrat (Article 164 of the Criminal Code), following
an initial judgment that had been quashed by the Court of
Revision, the same court, sitting in a different composition,
39