The distinction between swindle crime and the breach of contract. About the criminal relevance of deceit in contracts

Authors

  • Raúl Pariona Arana Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8273-3627

    Doctor en Derecho por la Universidad de Múnich (Múnich, Alemania). Profesor en la Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú y la Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos.
    Correo electrónico: rpariona@ pucp.edu.pe.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18800/iusetveritas.202302.008

Keywords:

Contracts, Swindle crime, Contract fraud, Breach of contract, Deceit, Willful intent, Defect of consent, Patrimonial detriment

Abstract

Contracts are a fundamental element in our current economic system. However, parties sometimes act in bad faith, thereby affecting the contractual relationship. One of the most frequent bad faith conducts is the deceit between the parties to conclude the contract, which then materializes in a breach of contract. This situation has led to the regulation of civil and criminal protection mechanisms. The mechanisms applied in practice include contractual fraud, deceit as a defect of consent and contractual breach. Despite the similarities between these legal institutions, their distinction is extremely important, particularly because the consequence of fraud entails criminal punishment. In that context, this paper features the legal institutions that protect contractual relationships against behaviors where the deceit takes place and analyzes the criteria of delimitation between the swindle crime and the civil institutions.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Published

2023-12-29

How to Cite

Pariona Arana, R. (2023). The distinction between swindle crime and the breach of contract. About the criminal relevance of deceit in contracts. IUS ET VERITAS, (67), 162–174. https://doi.org/10.18800/iusetveritas.202302.008

Issue

Section

Main Section